The Nepali Congress stands at one of the most critical junctures in its storied history following the House of Representatives election held on Falgun 21, 2082 (March 5, 2026). With only 38 seats secured—18 in the first-past-the-post (FPTP) category and 20 through proportional representation—the party has recorded its weakest parliamentary presence ever. This outcome has sparked intense internal debate, including discussions on leadership accountability.
A key question circulating in political circles and among observers is why Gagan Thapa should resign as party president. Thapa, who assumed the top post after the special general convention in late Poush 2082 (December 2025–January 2026), led the campaign under the banner “Badlyau Congress, Badlchau Desh” (We changed Congress, we will change the country). Yet the results fell far short of expectations, prompting calls for him to step down on moral grounds.
The Scale of the Defeat
The numbers paint a stark picture. The Nepali Congress, long Nepal’s largest democratic force, dropped dramatically from its previous tally. The Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) surged to form what appears to be the first majority government in decades. For Congress, the loss was comprehensive: senior leaders, including newly elected office-bearers from the special convention, largely failed to win seats.
Most strikingly, President Thapa himself suffered defeat in Sarlahi-4. Contesting from this Terai constituency instead of his traditional safe seat in Kathmandu-4, he lost to RSP candidate Dr Amaresh Kumar Singh by a margin of about 12,857 votes (Singh: 35,688; Thapa: 22,831). This marked Thapa’s first personal electoral loss after an 18-year parliamentary career, amplifying perceptions of strategic miscalculation.
Critics argue that such a personal and organisational setback demands accountability at the highest level. Thapa had positioned himself as the face of “Congress 2.0”—a reformed, dynamic version of the party free from old baggage. When that vision failed to resonate with voters, especially in rural and provincial areas, the argument for resignation gained weight as a demonstration of the very principles he championed against previous leaders.
Moral Responsibility in Political Tradition
Nepali politics has long valued leaders taking moral responsibility for major failures. Thapa built much of his early career criticising elders for clinging to power after defeats. He repeatedly called for resignations following poor performances, framing accountability as essential to renewal.
In the immediate aftermath of the results, reports emerged that Thapa privately expressed readiness to step down. In a meeting with Vice President Bishwa Prakash Sharma, he reportedly said it would be appropriate to resign, accepting responsibility for the party’s defeat. This aligns with the ethical standard he once demanded from others. Supporters of resignation contend that consistency is crucial: if Thapa expects accountability from predecessors, he must apply the same to himself to preserve credibility.
Without such a step, the party risks appearing hypocritical. The public, already disillusioned after years of instability, might view continued leadership as self-preservation rather than service. A graceful exit could allow Thapa to retain personal stature while clearing space for fresh introspection.
Strategic and Organisational Shortcomings
Beyond personal accountability, several strategic decisions under Thapa’s watch contributed to the rout. The choice to contest Sarlahi-4 was bold but risky—trading a guaranteed win for a symbolic fight in a challenging area. While intended to project confidence, it backfired and removed a key parliamentary voice.
The campaign timeline was compressed. The special convention concluded just weeks before nominations, leaving limited preparation. The “Congress 2.0” messaging appealed to urban youth influenced by the 2025 Gen-Z protests, but it apparently failed to rebuild grassroots networks eroded over decades.
Allegations of internal sabotage in some provinces further highlight organisational fragility. If the president’s leadership cannot sufficiently unify or energise the base, proponents of resignation argue that it signals the need for a new direction. Staying on might prolong division rather than heal it.
Counterarguments: Why Resignation Might Not Help
Not everyone agrees that Thapa should resign immediately. Vice President Sharma advised against it, noting the defeat stemmed from broader systemic issues—not solely one leader’s fault. The new working committee had mere weeks to campaign, and blaming Thapa alone ignores decades of accumulated challenges.
Senior figures such as Gopal Man Shrestha and Chandra Bhandari have urged him to stay, framing his resignation as abandoning responsibility at a time when unity is vital. They argue the focus should be on organisational revival through a full general convention, not leadership upheaval.
A sudden vacancy could trigger factional fights, especially given the party’s history of splits. With RSP dominating and Congress relegated to a diminished opposition role, stability under experienced (albeit defeated) leadership might better position the party for future recovery.
The Path Forward: Review Before Decision
The party has scheduled a Central Working Committee meeting in the first week of Chaitra (mid-March 2026) to review the results thoroughly. Spokesperson Devaraj Ghimire emphasised that any major decision, including resignation, should emerge from formal discussion—not rumours or street pressure.
This structured approach allows evaluation of multiple factors: campaign flaws, voter shifts post-Gen-Z movement, internal dynamics, and external challenges like RSP’s momentum. If the review concludes that leadership change is necessary for renewal, resignation could serve as a catalyst. If unity and reform under the current leadership prove viable, Thapa could lead the rebuilding.
A Defining Moment for Nepal’s Oldest Party
The debate over whether Gagan Thapa should resign transcends one individual. It concerns the survival and relevance of an institution central to Nepal’s democratic journey. The Nepali Congress has endured royal interventions, insurgencies, and internal crises before. Each time, it adapted through introspection and, at times, leadership transitions.
Today’s crisis tests that resilience anew. A principled step-down could symbolise commitment to accountability and inspire renewal. Conversely, staying to guide recovery might demonstrate steadfastness in tough times.www.ndtv.com
Ultimately, the Central Committee’s forthcoming deliberations will shape the answer. For now, the conversation underscores a deeper truth: in democracy, power is temporary, and true leadership often requires knowing when to step aside—or when to fight on.
The coming weeks will reveal whether this defeat becomes the end of an era or the painful birth of a revitalised force. Nepal’s political future hangs in the balance. Unveiling the Chaos: Nepal’s September 2025 Turmoil and the Jholey Network
1 thought on “Why Gagan Thapa Should Resign: Nepal’s Historic Congress Defeat Demands Accountability”