A news summary with an editorial review. KP Sharma Oli, Chairman of the CPN-UML, has warned leaders involved in the party’s reorganization campaign to leave the party, labeling them as ‘vagabonds.’ These remarks by Chairman Oli have been vehemently opposed by the party’s young leaders, who have launched the ‘I am Vagabond’ campaign on social media. Leader Navina Lama has stated that their demands for party leadership and generational transition have followed proper political practices and debate.
CPN-UML Chairman KP Sharma Oli’s description of leaders engaged in the reorganization drive as ‘vagabonds’ has drawn strong objections from those leaders. The ‘I am Vagabond’ campaign has gained traction on social networks. They argue that those raising issues about reorganization should not be called vagabonds. Oli’s warning urging them to leave the party has sparked significant controversy. Leader Navina Lama was briefly interviewed on this matter.
After arriving in Ilam, Chairman Oli issued an unbeatable challenge. Was there a response to that? Instead of questioning individuals personally, our issues are legitimate. We have consulted party leaders and initiated a fresh style of debate on how to strengthen the party and preserve its history. However, we find it unacceptable that he dismissed our debate as ‘vagabond.’ It is inappropriate to call those debating party matters within the party office ‘vagabonds.’
Yesterday, if he liked someone, they were called children, but if not, gathering to label them vagabonds has no prosperous tradition. This method is not right. We respect him as ‘KP Ba,’ acknowledging his chairmanship. But dissatisfaction should not be expressed through the term ‘vagabond.’ It is time for new agendas and leadership in the UML. This issue deserves thoughtful discussion. We are not vagabonds; we are neither gangsters, contractors, nor involved in weekly extortion.
Were you hurt by the chairman’s words? We have only expressed the need to respectfully transfer leadership. We are not engaged in any anarchic activities. We have been active in the party committee for a long time. Certainly, he has contributed much to the party. He is senior to us, and we acknowledge that contribution. But we have also considerably contributed to the party. Genuine love sustains the party as well. He has urged us to leave the party, but we will not. If he is challenging us to quit, is he afraid? We have no reason for fear. We are here for political debate, discussion, and exchange of ideas.
We have never asked him to leave the party. It is leadership they want to pressure in stepping down because his leadership is currently failing. Who would leave the party? We won’t. He must pass on the leadership. He must resign as chairman. Leadership should be entrusted to the younger generation, and the party must be reorganized in a new way. Under his leadership, the party was defeated by 50,000 votes. Even the candidates he endorsed lost. There are many positive and negative aspects here. But we have firmly stated that the dissatisfaction of the people stems from him.
We do not desire positions. This debate is not for becoming a member of parliament or minister. But since the party is in crisis, we have initiated debate. Is KP Oli no longer capable? His leadership has failed. He held the positions of prime minister and party chairman for a long time. How long can the same leadership remain? There is now a prime minister under 35 in the country; new leadership must emerge. Strident remarks towards those who are dissatisfied are typical of KP Oli’s style. Why does it hurt? Even when leaders like Madhav Nepal left the party, there were never expressions like this.
We have not gathered signatures to make him leave the party. We have called for respectful boycott within the party’s structure. But calling us ‘vagabonds’ and telling us to quit the party is disrespectful. We cannot say the party is his alone or that the process is his to define. He says there is a process and method, so what is it? We former Akhil members are in discussion. We have had calm debates within the party. We all carry a political culture. What happens now? He holds the country’s chief executive post and is party chairman. Thousands of activists built the organization and brought him this far. That must be respected. The party has rules, principles, policies, and procedures, and committees. Now he must accept the questions and dissatisfaction raised within this structure and respectfully consider the views of the majority of activists and leaders. He is entitled to his opinions, and we have ours. Leadership must be transferred with respect through proper methods and procedures.
