- RSP lawmakers criticized ministers for poor governance, lack of transparent appointments, and a growing disconnect between party leadership and its parliamentary representatives.
- Concerns were raised over the Home Ministry's handling of the Gen Z movement and Finance Ministry policies concerning taxation, inflation, and shortages.
- Lawmakers demanded institutionalized selection processes and greater accountability to preserve the party's image as a merit-based alternative to traditional politics.
- Chair Rabi Lamichhane rejected cabinet reshuffle rumors, urging improved coordination despite tensions and speculation surrounding the Prime Minister's recent public statements.
Kathmandu, Nepal: The ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) is facing growing internal pressure after its own lawmakers openly questioned the performance of ministers and the functioning of the government during a parliamentary party discussion in Singha Durbar on Wednesday. What initially appeared to be a routine internal interaction turned into a significant political exercise, with lawmakers raising concerns over ministerial appointments, governance, public service delivery, the handling of issues related to the Gen Z movement and the growing gap between the government and its parliamentary representatives.
Around 25 lawmakers participated in the discussion, and according to participants, the tone of the meeting was considerably more critical than a conventional ruling-party gathering. Lawmakers reportedly spoke candidly about problems they had encountered and concerns being raised by citizens in their constituencies. The discussion was significant not simply because ministers were criticized, but because the criticism came from members of the ruling party at a time when the government is still trying to establish its credibility as an alternative to the traditional political establishment.
RSP Chair Rabi Lamichhane reportedly encouraged lawmakers at the beginning of the meeting to speak openly about matters that might be difficult to discuss in the media or defend publicly. Once the floor was opened, lawmakers began questioning the government's performance on a range of issues. The discussion revealed that dissatisfaction within the party is not concentrated around a single minister. Instead, it touches upon the broader style of government, decision-making, appointments and coordination between the political party, its lawmakers and the executive.
One of the most important questions came from lawmaker Pukar Bam, who questioned the process of selecting ministers. He reportedly asked why there were criteria for appointing personal secretaries when there appeared to be no equally clear criteria for selecting ministers. Politically, the question goes beyond the Cabinet itself. The RSP rose by promising merit, transparency and a departure from the patronage-based political culture associated with established parties. If the process of selecting ministers is perceived as unclear or politically driven, the party risks weakening one of the central arguments behind its rise.
Questions over appointments have already surfaced within the RSP. Earlier reports in Nepali media indicated dissatisfaction among some party leaders over ministerial and parliamentary appointments and the level of consultation involved in making such decisions. The recurrence of the issue suggests that the party may need to move beyond informal political decision-making and establish a more institutional system for selecting ministers and senior officials.
The criticism of Home Minister Sudhan Gurung was particularly notable. Lawmaker Dipak Bohora, who is considered close to Lamichhane, questioned the government's handling of arrests and releases and described some decisions as immature. His criticism attracted attention because he had not previously emerged as a prominent critic of the government. When lawmakers who are politically close to the party leadership begin questioning ministers, it becomes increasingly difficult to portray criticism as merely factional politics or opposition propaganda. It suggests that concerns are being felt within the government's own political camp.
The Home Ministry also came under pressure over the government's handling of issues arising from the Gen Z movement. Lawmaker Aakriti Awasthi questioned what was being done for those injured during the movement and for the families of those killed. Lawmakers also asked why cases against some participants had not been withdrawn. Rachana Khatri raised the issue of education for children of families who lost relatives during the movement. These are politically sensitive issues for the RSP because the party's rise is closely connected with the political environment created by the movement. The government's response to those affected will therefore be judged not only as a matter of administration but also as a test of whether the party remains connected to the constituency that helped bring it to power.
The government faces a particularly delicate challenge in dealing with these cases. A purely security-oriented response could deepen resentment, while an overly political approach could raise questions about the rule of law. The most constructive path would be a transparent legal process combined with appropriate humanitarian and rehabilitation measures for those genuinely affected. The government needs to communicate clearly what cases are being reviewed, what support is being provided to victims and families, and what legal principles are guiding its decisions.
Finance Minister Swarnim Wagle also faced criticism during the meeting, particularly over taxation and customs policy. Lawmakers questioned the decision to impose customs duties on goods above a certain value. While the government may have legitimate revenue and regulatory objectives, economic policy ultimately reaches citizens through prices, consumption and household expenses. For ordinary families, the debate is less about the technical design of taxation and more about whether policies are making everyday life more expensive.
This is where the government's economic credibility will increasingly be tested. The RSP cannot rely solely on the argument that its economic policies are technically sound. It must also demonstrate how those policies affect consumers, small businesses, traders and families. If taxation increases without visible improvements in public services, the political cost can quickly become greater than the revenue benefit.
Lawmakers also raised the problems of fertilizer shortages, cooking-gas shortages and inflation. These issues may appear less politically dramatic than Cabinet disputes, but they are far more important to ordinary citizens. A farmer who cannot obtain fertilizer on time is unlikely to be persuaded by government explanations about administrative reform. A family facing higher food and energy costs will judge the government by the amount left in its household budget at the end of the month. The political strength of the RSP will therefore depend increasingly on its ability to translate political promises into improvements that citizens can feel.
The Education and Sports Ministry also came under scrutiny over appointments. Lawmakers reportedly alleged a lack of transparency in appointments and expressed concern about the condition of the sports sector. Minister Sasmit Pokharel defended the process and said he was prepared to reverse appointments if problems were identified. His response points to a broader solution: rather than asking citizens to trust government claims that appointments are fair, the government should make the process transparent enough to withstand public scrutiny. Clear criteria, qualifications and evaluation procedures would reduce suspicion and strengthen institutional credibility.
The discussion also exposed a more fundamental question about the relationship between ministers and lawmakers. Home Minister Gurung reportedly urged lawmakers to defend the government, while lawmakers argued that they were raising concerns coming from the public. This tension is normal in parliamentary politics, but it becomes particularly important for a party like the RSP, which built its identity around challenging traditional political practices.
A ruling-party lawmaker has two responsibilities that sometimes come into conflict. They are expected to support the government politically, but they are also elected to represent citizens and question the executive. If the first responsibility completely overwhelms the second, Parliament becomes weaker. On the other hand, if every disagreement becomes a public political fight, government stability suffers. The answer is not to silence criticism but to institutionalize it through regular parliamentary party meetings, ministerial briefings and clear mechanisms for resolving lawmakers' concerns.
Another important dimension of the meeting was the relationship between RSP Chair Lamichhane and Prime Minister and parliamentary party leader Balendra Shah. The two remain the most prominent political figures within the RSP, but questions have periodically emerged over their respective roles and the extent of coordination between the party and government. Lamichhane has repeatedly rejected suggestions of a serious political division and has said that there is no immediate plan to change ministers.
The Prime Minister's absence from Wednesday's discussion, however, has added another layer to the debate. Lamichhane said that a parliamentary party meeting involving Shah would be held soon. Such a meeting could be important because a government cannot function effectively if the party's lawmakers feel disconnected from the Prime Minister and the executive.
Shah's recent social-media statement suggesting that one sometimes has to “fight alone” has also generated political speculation. Lamichhane played down the statement, describing Shah as a poet and artist and warning against attaching political meaning to every word. While that may help reduce immediate speculation, the larger institutional question remains. A government led by two major political centers needs clearly defined roles, regular communication and mechanisms for resolving disagreements. Personal understanding between leaders can help, but it cannot replace institutional clarity.
The speculation over a possible Cabinet reshuffle is another issue that deserves careful attention. Lamichhane has said that ministers will not be changed for now. A reshuffle is not necessarily the best solution to weak performance. Constantly replacing ministers can create instability and prevent ministries from completing long-term programmes. But retaining ministers should also be accompanied by objective performance evaluation. The government should be able to explain why a minister remains in office and what measurable targets that minister is expected to achieve.
Lamichhane's own remarks during the meeting reflected this pressure. He reportedly warned ministers and lawmakers that politics should not be treated as a short-term five-year opportunity and urged them to focus on results rather than publicity. He also stressed parliamentary discipline, study and responsible public conduct.
The message is politically significant because it establishes a standard against which the RSP government itself can be judged. If the leadership wants ministers to be results-oriented, it must create a system that measures results. Each ministry should have clear priorities, timelines and performance indicators, while progress should be communicated to the public regularly. Without such mechanisms, calls for “results” can remain political rhetoric.
The dispute over information reaching the media also deserves attention. Lamichhane reportedly expressed anger after details of the meeting appeared in the press. Protecting the confidentiality of internal party discussions is understandable, but the party must distinguish between organizational secrecy and public accountability. The fact that lawmakers are questioning ministers is itself a matter of political significance. The solution should not be to identify and punish those who speak, but to ensure that legitimate concerns raised inside the party lead to corrective action.
For the RSP, Wednesday's meeting should therefore be treated neither as a rebellion nor as an insignificant internal disagreement. It is a warning that the expectations created by the party's rise are beginning to meet the difficult realities of governing. The party is now being judged by the same standards it once used to judge established political forces: transparency in appointments, competence in administration, accountability in Parliament, responsiveness to citizens and the ability to deliver results.
The party still has an opportunity to turn the current criticism into institutional reform. It can establish clear criteria for ministerial appointments, strengthen regular communication between the Prime Minister and lawmakers, introduce transparent performance reviews for ministers, publish progress on major government commitments and develop a clear policy for people affected by the Gen Z movement. It can also give greater priority to everyday concerns such as inflation, fertilizer, cooking gas, health, education and employment.
The most important lesson from Wednesday's meeting is that the RSP's biggest political challenge may not currently be coming from the opposition. It is coming from the expectations of its own supporters and the questions being raised by its own lawmakers.
The party came to power promising a different political culture. That promise will not be measured by how effectively it criticizes the old parties anymore. It will be measured by how it governs when it has the power to make decisions.
For the people outside Singha Durbar, the questions are ultimately straightforward: Are public services improving? Are prices becoming manageable? Are government appointments fair? Are promises being fulfilled? Are leaders listening?
The answers to those questions—not the arguments inside the parliamentary party—will determine whether the RSP can turn its political breakthrough into lasting public trust.
