- Former PM Sher Bahadur Deuba returned to Nepal after medical treatment, resuming his influential status within the divided Nepali Congress party.
- His return coincides with a Supreme Court review regarding the legitimacy of current party president Gagan Thapa’s leadership.
- The party aims to integrate Deuba’s experience as an "elder" while addressing Gen Z demands for younger leadership and institutional reform.
- Deuba also faces renewed scrutiny from financial investigators regarding his family’s assets as he navigates the shifting political landscape.
Kathmandu, Nepal — Former Prime Minister and outgoing president of the Nepali Congress, Sher Bahadur Deuba, returned to Nepal on Thursday after nearly five months abroad for medical treatment, drawing renewed attention to the country’s shifting political landscape and the unresolved leadership dispute within his party.
Deuba had left Nepal on February 13 for medical treatment in Singapore and later travelled to Hong Kong. His return comes at a critical juncture for the Nepali Congress, which has undergone a leadership change while remaining divided over the legitimacy of the new leadership.
The party’s Central Working Committee, meeting at its central office in Sanepa on Thursday under the chairmanship of President Gagan Thapa, formally welcomed Deuba and wished him a full recovery.
The meeting also acknowledged his contribution to Nepal’s democratic movement and the development of the Nepali Congress. More significantly, the party expressed confidence that Deuba would play an “elder” or guiding role in the organisation.
The decision said Deuba, who had spent decades fighting for democratic values and institutional procedures, should help institutionalise the changes brought about by the party’s Special General Convention and contribute to building a more dynamic and contemporary Nepali Congress.
The carefully worded message reflects the delicate balance the new leadership is trying to maintain. While the party has moved ahead under Thapa’s leadership, Deuba remains an influential figure with a large political network and substantial support within the organisation.
Return amid a continuing leadership dispute
Deuba’s return comes only days after the Supreme Court reopened the legal dispute surrounding the leadership of the Nepali Congress.
The Supreme Court recently agreed to review its earlier decision concerning the legitimacy of the Thapa-led Central Working Committee. The earlier ruling had upheld the Election Commission’s recognition of the leadership formed following the Special General Convention.
The decision to review the case does not, by itself, remove Thapa from the presidency. The current leadership remains in place unless the court reaches a different conclusion following the review.
Nevertheless, the development has given fresh political momentum to the Deuba camp, which has continued to challenge the process through which Thapa became party president.
The result is a complicated situation inside one of Nepal’s oldest political parties: Thapa leads the party, while a significant section of the organisation continues to question the circumstances surrounding his rise to the leadership.
Deuba returns to a changed political environment
Deuba has been one of the most influential figures in Nepali politics for decades. He has served as prime minister five times and has played a prominent role in the country’s democratic and political transitions.
For many Congress supporters, he remains a leader associated with the party’s long political struggle and its organisational expansion across the country.
But Nepal’s political mood has changed significantly.
The Gen Z movement exposed widespread frustration among younger citizens with the established political order. Issues such as corruption, unemployment, poor governance, political privilege and the lack of opportunities for younger leaders became central to public debate.
The movement also challenged the dominance of political figures who have remained at the centre of national politics for decades.
Deuba became one of the most recognisable representatives of that older political generation.
During the unrest last year, protesters attacked the residence of Deuba and his wife, former foreign minister Arzu Rana Deuba. Both were injured and subsequently travelled abroad for medical treatment.
His return therefore has a broader political significance. He is coming back to a country where the generation of leaders he represents has faced unprecedented public criticism, while his own party is attempting to present itself under younger leadership.
Congress seeks a balance between experience and change
The decision to give Deuba an elder role appears to be an effort to find common ground between the party’s old and new leadership.
The Congress cannot easily disregard Deuba’s political experience. After decades at the top of the party, he has established relationships with leaders and cadres throughout the country.
At the same time, the party’s new leadership cannot afford to allow old factional structures to dominate its efforts at renewal.
This creates a difficult balancing act.
Deuba’s experience could be valuable to a party seeking to rebuild its credibility. But if his return becomes the centre of another struggle for organisational control, the Congress could find itself trapped in the same cycle of factional conflict that has weakened it for years.
The question, therefore, is not whether Deuba still has political influence. He clearly does.
The more important question is how he chooses to use that influence.
The deeper problem goes beyond Deuba and Thapa
The current conflict should not be viewed simply as a personal rivalry between Deuba and Thapa.
The Congress has long struggled with factionalism, leadership succession and the concentration of power around influential individuals.
Leadership contests have often been shaped by personal alliances and competing factions, making institutional mechanisms for leadership transition more difficult to establish.
Thapa’s rise represents an important generational change, but a change of leadership alone cannot transform the party.
The real challenge is to change the way the party operates.
That means strengthening internal democracy, making decision-making more transparent, reducing factional influence, providing meaningful opportunities for younger leaders and rebuilding the party’s connection with ordinary voters.
Gen Z demanded more than new faces
The political message of the Gen Z movement was not simply that older leaders should leave politics.
It was a broader demand for a different political culture.
Young people questioned a system in which the same leaders and political networks continued to dominate while issues such as employment, corruption, public services and accountability remained unresolved.
That distinction is important for the Congress.
A younger party president does not automatically make the party new. If younger leaders reproduce the same practices of patronage, factionalism and closed decision-making, the change could be seen as cosmetic.
Thapa’s leadership will therefore be judged not simply by his age or political background but by whether he can make the Congress function differently.
Deuba’s next move will be closely watched
For Deuba, the transition from party president to elder statesman could be one of the most important phases of his long political career.
An elder role requires influence without direct control. It requires offering experience and advice while allowing younger leaders to make decisions.
That may not be an easy adjustment for a politician who has spent decades at the centre of power.
Since returning, Deuba has reportedly spoken about reconciliation and the need to provide greater space for younger people while cautioning against dismissing experienced politicians simply because of their age.
If that approach translates into action, Deuba could help ease the divisions within the Congress.
But if his return leads to a renewed effort to regain organisational control, the party could once again find itself divided between competing centres of authority.
Legal and financial scrutiny
Deuba’s return has also brought renewed attention to financial investigations involving him, his wife and other members of his family.
Nepal’s Department of Money Laundering Investigation has been examining financial matters involving the family. Deuba and his family have denied wrongdoing and have indicated that they are prepared to cooperate with the investigation.
The matter should be viewed through the principles of due process. Being investigated does not amount to being guilty, and allegations should not be treated as established facts without evidence and a final legal determination.
At the same time, the investigation is a matter of legitimate public interest because Deuba is a former five-time prime minister and one of the country’s most prominent political figures.
His return means that both his political activities and the legal process surrounding the investigation will now receive closer attention.
Thapa faces a test of his own
The responsibility for resolving the Congress crisis does not rest solely with Deuba.
Gagan Thapa rose to the leadership promising change and renewal. He must now demonstrate that his leadership represents more than a change of faces at the top.
He faces the difficult task of maintaining the authority of the new leadership while avoiding a confrontation that could permanently split the party.
At the same time, excessive accommodation of the old leadership could undermine the very reform agenda that brought him to power.
The challenge is to respect Deuba’s political contribution without allowing the past to dictate the future.
A wider question for Nepal’s political transition
The developments inside the Congress reflect a larger question facing Nepal.
The Gen Z movement created expectations that the country was entering a new political era. Yet many established political figures and networks remain influential.
That raises an uncomfortable question: Has Nepal genuinely changed its political culture, or are the old political forces simply reorganising themselves under new circumstances?
The answer will not be found in speeches, party meetings or airport receptions.
It will be determined by whether political parties change the way they select leaders and candidates, manage internal disagreements, respond to public criticism and create opportunities for a new generation.
For the Nepali Congress, Deuba’s return is therefore both an opportunity and a challenge.
His experience could help the party reconcile its factions and preserve institutional continuity. But if his return triggers another prolonged battle for power, it could reinforce the perception that the party has changed its leadership without changing its political culture.
A crucial moment for the Congress
Deuba has returned to a political environment very different from the one he left.
He is no longer the party president. Gagan Thapa leads the organisation, although the legitimacy of that leadership remains under judicial review. Deuba’s faction remains active, and the party continues to face pressure from a younger electorate demanding meaningful political change.
The Congress’s decision to welcome Deuba and seek an elder role for him provides an opening for reconciliation, but it does not resolve the party’s deeper problems.
The coming months will show whether Deuba is prepared to use his political experience to help the new generation take responsibility, and whether Thapa can build a party in which political succession becomes an institutional process rather than another battle between powerful individuals.
For Deuba, the final measure of his long political career may ultimately be less about how many times he occupied the prime minister’s office and more about whether he can help make room for those who come after him.
For Thapa, the challenge is equally clear: to build a Congress that respects its history without remaining trapped by it.
The future of the Nepali Congress may depend on whether the two generations can turn their current rivalry into a workable relationship—and whether the party can convince a sceptical public that its transformation is real, not merely a change of leadership at the top.
