Congress 2.0 misses chance to abandon socialism and embrace liberalism

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose,
By any other name would smell as sweet," said Shakespeare.
But in politics, names matter because they help people understand a party’s ideology, which is supposed to be the guiding principle of any political party. In Nepal, however, almost all political parties seem to have taken Shakespeare’s ‘What’s in a name?’ a little too seriously. Their names promise one ideology, while their actions practice another, making the name less a reflection of their politics and more a convenient disguise for it.
And Nepali Congress is no different, let alone the leftist, or people and leaders love to call themselves communist parties.
Learning from the way the left parties – who have been promoting crony capitalism in the name of socialism – in Nepal over the past decade, many had hoped that Nepali Congress would, during its 15th General Convention, embrace a free, fair and competitive market economy. However, the grand old party (GOP) has once again disappointed.
Whatever its practice may have been, Nepali Congress has always described itself as a democratic socialist party, also as its founding principle. Therefore, although the Congress’s interpretation of socialism is theoretically different from that of the left, there has long been a public complaint that the citizens have felt little or no difference between democratic socialism and leftist socialism. One of the major reasons for growing public distrust of political parties is the vast gap between what they profess and what they actually practice.
With little expectation from the left parties on the issue, the 15th General Convention offered the Nepali Congress an opportunity to reconcile its principles with its practice.
There were two reasons for this.
First, at least through the branding of ‘Nepali Congress 2.0,’ the party had sought, through its special convention six months ago, to present itself as synonymous with transformation and generational change.
Second, Nepali Congress 2.0 has repeatedly claimed that it will not enter electoral alliances with anyone. Since party President Gagan Thapa himself has been vocal on the issue, it should also be understood as an assertion that the Congress is different from the left and will not contest elections in alliance with the left parties.
Over the past three decades, whether competing for power or sharing it, whether as opponents, rivals or political bed-partners, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist), or CPN-UML, and the former CPN (Maoist), or current Nepali Communist Party (NCP) – broadly speaking the left parties – have been the principal political counterparts of the Nepali Congress. Gagan Thapa had opposed former Nepali Congress 1.0 president Sher Bahadur Deuba largely because of his repeated alliances with them.
There are, of course, royalist forces and the current ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP). But it would be premature to assume that Nepali Congress 2.0 will any sooner form an electoral alliance with them.
Therefore, even if Nepali Congress was not expected to make an ideological leap directly from socialism to capitalism, there was an expectation that the 15th General Convention would bring greater clarity to its economic policy. After all, the party has moved from its traditional guiding or founding principle of ‘Nationalism, Democracy and Socialism’ replacing the term Prajatantra – as it refers king and subjects and gives monarchist reflection – with loktantra – the people’s democracy – in Nepali, while retaining the same three core principles.
The political report presented by President Gagan Thapa itself acknowledges this. It states that the fundamental basis of the Nepali Congress's economic outlook is Nationalism, Democracy and Socialism. It says the democratic socialism developed by party founder and national leader BP Koirala placed not merely statistical economic growth but the life, human dignity, participation and opportunities of ordinary citizens at the center of development. The report says that, while embracing BP’s historic symbol of the ‘farmer ploughing the land,’ the party has now placed at the center of its economic development policy the reality of a ‘young person standing with a passport in hand or looking for opportunities within the country.’
If the report recognizes such a fundamental difference between BP Koirala’s era and today's economic landscape, markets, the character of markets, the role of the private sector and the role of government, then there is little justification for continuing to cling to the same old ‘democratic socialism’.
Unless, of course, the intention is to continue writing ‘socialism’ in the documents, while embracing crony capitalism in practice, just as the left has done over the years. If that is the case, could Nepali Congress 2.0 become even more controversial and alienated from citizens than its previous version?
Regardless of how differently the report interprets socialism, Nepali Congress 2.0 has clearly missed an opportunity. The word ‘socialism’ itself has become discredited in Nepal. Every Nepalis raise an eyebrow when they look at the lifestyles, houses and wealth of socialist aka communist leaders.
This should not, however, be interpreted to mean that accumulating wealth is a crime. In Nepali society, there is already a strange contradiction: making profits through trade and business and accumulating wealth through productive economic activity are often viewed with suspicion, while accumulating wealth through politics without any formal source of income is treated as a sign of greatness.
Nepali Congress 2.0 has not made it clear whose interests it actually seeks to represent.
At times it appears capitalist; at other times socialist. Such ambiguity may attract liberal left intellectuals, but economy cannot be function dynamically through such an unclear and indecisive policy.
It also appears that Nepali Congress 2.0 has not fully claimed ownership of, or embraced, the liberal economic policies pursued under Nepali Congress leadership after 1991. If the intention is to maintain such a gap between principle and practice, there was little need to elaborate on socialism at all.
If the party intends to continue writing ‘socialism’ in its documents, while doing whatever it wants in practice, it might at least have offered a word of thanks to former finance ministers Mahesh Acharya and Dr Ram Sharan Mahat.
Not only the left but the Nepali Congress itself has consistently criticized and harassed them for their liberal economic policies, alas due to which the country is still not a failure state. And today, there is hardly anyone in the Congress willing to realize that Nepal did not collapse economically even during a decade-long Maoist insurgency because of the economic policies pursued under the duo’s leadership.
This may indicate that the left leaning of democratic Nepali Congress is accelerating.
That does not mean Acharya and Dr Mahat had no shortcomings or that everything they did was correct. Their practical implementation of liberal economic policies also had procedural weaknesses. Those weaknesses could have been corrected and the policy framework taken forward. But the belief that the Nepali Congress can fool the people by using the word ‘socialism’ has rendered even the achievements made under Nepali Congress’s own leadership irrelevant.
Those, who are reluctant even to claim credit for the expansion of the private sector and the employment opportunities created within the country will struggle to convince youth that they can create jobs in Nepal, and that too projecting a youth with passport in his hands.
Had BP Koirala been alive today, what would he say?
Therefore, while Sher Bahadur Deuba has been blamed for the leftward drift of the Nepali Congress due to physical coalition, it would not be unreasonable to say that today's transformed or generationally renewed Congress – Nepali Congress 2.0 – is creating ideologically coalition.
This could also lead to allegations that the political and economic ideological commitment of Gagan Thapa, who was accused of capturing the party through the special convention and now stands unopposed at the 15th General Convention, is left tilted ideologically, which can never become the benchmark for transforming the Nepali Congress.
As the report reads, BP Koirala’s historic perspective, shaped by an era defined by land reform, illiteracy and rural poverty, centered on the ‘farmer ploughing the land’. The basis of BP’s projection of ‘farmer ploughing the land’ was production, and productivity.
However, today's Nepali is primarily a consumer, not a producer.
Yesterday, land was a source of production. Today, land is largely a transactional instrument for quick money. It produces little or no, and creates no employment, but balloons the financial market and help crash the bank and financial institutions. We have already had bad experience of cooperatives and failing of some banks and financial institutions due to land or collateral.
Therefore, socialism alone cannot solve the structural problems of current Nepali economy. Even if the diagnosis of the disease is correct, the disease will not be cured, if the medicine is wrong. Nepali Congress 2.0 has, in that sense, prescribed a wrong pill to the economic ills of today’s Nepal.
The report also states that ‘the state should function not as a trader or owner, but as a fair regulator, guardian of good governance, builder of modern infrastructure and provider of quality public services.'
Of course, the state's role should be narrowed, with the government focusing on policy formulation and monitoring the market to ensure free, fair, competitive and disciplined implementation, while allowing the market to function. Many of Nepal's problems in recent years have emerged because the state or government has become stronger while governance has remained weaker.
Thus, Nepali Congress cannot transform itself by weakening institutions, or helping to weaken them, or refusing to adopt liberal economic policies instead of socialism, which is a cliché.
Ultimately, continuity in ideology without changing the tools will not increase private-sector investment, productivity or employment.
Likewise, ‘private-sector investment,’ ‘productivity’ and ‘employment’ are among the most abused terms in Nepal today. Every political party or every so-called intellectual has memorized them. But none has been able to translate them adequately into practice.
If Nepali Congress genuinely wants the private sector to drive prosperity, it must meaningfully update its economic ideology. Clinging to the word ‘socialism’ alone by redefining it with new terminology or adding explanatory commentary will neither help transform Nepali Congress not Nepal.
(First Published in nepalkhara.com on October 7, 2026 -- https://en.nepalkhabar.com/news/detail/20070/)

समाजवाद फालेर उदारवाद अँगाल्ने मौका गुमाएको कांग्रेस २.०

समाजवादको नाममा पछिल्लो एक दशकमा वामपन्थीहरूले नेपालमा जसरी आसोपासे पुँजीवादलाई प्रोत्साहन गरे, त्यसबाट शिक्षा लिँदै नेपाली कांग्रेसले स्वतन्त्र, निष्पक्ष र प्रतिस्पर्धात्मक बजार अर्थतन्त्रलाई अँगाल्ने आशा धेरैले गरेका थिए। तर यस पटक मुलुकको पुरानो राजनीतिक दलले उनीहरूलाई निराश बनाएको छ।
व्यवहारमा जे जस्तो भए पनि नेपाली कांग्रेसले आफूलाई प्रजातान्त्रिक समाजवादी भन्दै आएको छ। व्यवहारमा सर्वसाधारणले कांग्रेस र वामपन्थीहरूमा कुनै फरकपनाको महसुस गर्न नपाएको गुनासो थियो। राजनीतिक दलमाथि नागरिकको बढ्दो अविश्वासको एउटा प्रमुख कारण, व्यवहार र सिद्धान्तमा आकाशपातालको फरक पनि हो।
वामपन्थी दलहरूबाट यस विषयमा कुनै आशा नभएका कारण पनि यसपटक नेपाली कांग्रेसलाई आफ्नो १५औँ महाधिवेशनमार्फत आफ्नो दलको व्यवहार र सिद्धान्तलाई समायोजन गर्ने अवसर थियो। अर्थात्, यसका दुई कारण छन्। पहिलो, कमसेकम नेपाली कांग्रेस २.० नाममा ब्रान्डिङ गरेर भए पनि विशेष अधिवेशनमार्फत् यो पार्टीले आफूलाई रूपान्तरण तथा पुस्तान्तरणको चेष्टा गरेको थियो।
दोस्रो, नेपाली कांग्रेस २.० ले चुनावमा कसैसँग मिल्दैनौँ भन्ने दाबी गर्दै आएको छ। नेपाली कांग्रेस २.० का सभापति गगन थापाले नै यो मुद्दा बोकेर हिँडेका कारण पनि यसको अर्थ आफूलाई वामपन्थीभन्दा फरक हौँ र वामपन्थीहरूसँग मिलेर चुनाव लड्दैनौँ भनेको बुझ्नुपर्छ। नेपालमा पछिल्ला तीन दशकमा सत्तामा पौठाजोरी खेले पनि वा मिले पनि, कांग्रेसको विरोधी वा प्रतिद्वन्द्वी भने पनि वा सहयात्री भने पनि नेकपा एमाले वा नेपाली कम्युनिस्ट पार्टी (पुरानो नेकपा माओवादी) अर्थात् सोलोडोलो भाषामा वामपन्थी पार्टी नै थिए। जोसँग नेपाली कांग्रेस १.० का सभापति शेरबहादुर देउवाले पटक पटक मिलेका कारण गगनको विरोध थियो। हुन त नेपालमा राजावादी वा हालको सत्ताधारी राष्ट्रिय स्वतन्त्र पार्टी पनि छन्। तर, उनीहरूसँग नेपाली कांग्रेस २.० ले चुनावी गठबन्धन गरिहाल्ला भन्ने आकलन अहिल्यै गरिहाल्न सकिन्न।
त्यसैले सैद्धान्तिक-वैचारिक रूपमै नेपाली कांग्रेसले समाजवादबाट सिधै पुँजीवादमा फड्को नहाने पनि जसरी आफ्नो ‘राष्ट्रियता, प्रजातन्त्र र समाजवाद’को मूल सिद्धान्तबाट आज ‘राष्ट्रियता, लोकतन्त्र र समाजवाद’मा पुग्यो, हाल जारी १५औँ महाधिवेशनबाट आर्थिक नीतिमा अझै स्पष्टता ल्याउला भन्ने आशा थियो।
किनकि सभापति गगन थापाले प्रस्तुत गरेको राजनीतिक प्रतिवेदनले पनि स्विकारेको छ, ‘नेपाली कांग्रेसको आर्थिक दृष्टिकोणको मूल आधार राष्ट्रियता, लोकतन्त्र र समाजवाद हो। पार्टीका संस्थापक जननायक बीपी कोइरालाले प्रतिपादन गर्नुभएको लोकतान्त्रिक समाजवादले विकासको केन्द्रमा केवल तथ्यांकीय आर्थिक वृद्धिलाई होइन; साधारण नागरिकको जीवन, मानवीय गरिमा, सहभागिता र अवसरलाई केन्द्रमा राखेको थियो। हामीले बीपीको ‘हलो जोतिरहेको किसान’को ऐतिहासिक प्रतीकलाई आत्मसात गर्दै आज ‘हातमा पासपोर्ट बोकेर उभिएको वा देशभित्रै अवसर खोजिरहेको युवा’को यथार्थलाई आर्थिक विकास नीतिको केन्द्रबिन्दुमा राखेका छौँ।’
यसरी हिजो बीपी कोइरालाको समय र आजको आर्थिक परिदृश्य, बजार र बजारको चरित्र, निजी क्षेत्रको भूमिकाको साथै सरकारको पनि भूमिकामा स्पष्ट आकाश पताल फरक मान्ने हो भने हिजोकै लोकतान्त्रिक समाजवादको पुच्छर समातेर बस्नुमा कुनै तुक छैन।
होइन, लेख्न चाहिँ समाजवाद नै लेख्ने तर व्यवहारमा भने वामपन्थीले झैँ आसेपासे पुँजीवादलाई अँगाल्ने हो भने अर्कै कुरा हो। यसबाट त झन् नेपाली कांग्रेस २.० अघिल्लो संस्करणभन्दा पनि विवादित र नागरिकबाट परित्यक्त नहोला र?
समाजवादको अर्थबारे प्रतिवेदनले जति फरक व्याख्या गरे पनि नेपाली कांग्रेस २.० ले यो एउटा अवसर गुमाएकै हो। किनकि नेपालमा समाजवाद शब्द आफैँमा बदनाम छ। समाजवादी नेताहरूका रहनसहन, घर, सम्पत्ति देख्दा जिब्रो नटोक्ने नेपाली कोही छैन। तर, यसको अर्थ सम्पत्ति कमाउनु अपराध हो भन्ने नलागोस्। यसै पनि नेपाली समाजमा व्यापार, व्यवसाय गरेर नाफा गर्नु, धन, सम्पत्ति जोड्नु अपराध तर राजनीति गरेर बिना कुनै औपचारिक आय धन, सम्पत्ति जोड्नु महानता मानिन्छ। नेपाली कांग्रेस २.० ले  कुन वर्गको पक्षपोषण गर्न खोजेको हो, आफैँ स्पष्ट भएको देखिएन।
कतै पुँजीवादी हो कि जस्तो अनि कतै समाजवादी जस्तो देखिएर समाजमा रहेका उदारवादी वाम बुद्धिजीवीलाई आकर्षण त गर्न सकिएला। तर अर्थतन्त्रलाई चलायमान बनाउन यस्तो ढुलमुले नीति लिएर हुँदैन।
यसबाट त २०४८ सालपछिको नेपाली कांग्रेसको नेतृत्वमा चलेको उदार आर्थिक नीतिको पूर्ण स्वामित्व तथा अपनत्व पनि नेपाली कांग्रेस २.० ले नलिएको देखियो। अनि सिद्धान्त र व्यवहार यसरी नै फरक गर्ने विचार हो भने समाजवादको व्याख्या गर्न आवश्यक नै थिएन। दस्तावेजमा समाजवाद नै लेखिरहने अनि, जपिरहेन तर व्यवहारमा जे मन लाग्यो त्यही गर्ने भए त एकपटक पूर्वअर्थमन्त्रीद्वय महेश आचार्य र डा रामशरण महतलाई पनि धन्यवाद दिएको भए हुन्थ्यो।
वामपन्थीले मात्र होइन नेपाली कांग्रेसले पनि सधैँ सरापेका उनीहरूकै आर्थिक नीतिका कारण एक दशक लामो माओवादी द्वन्द्वमा पनि नेपाल टाट पल्टेन भनेर अडान लिन सक्ने कोही पनि आज नेपाली कांग्रेसमा नहुनुले नेपाली कांग्रेसको वामपन्थीकरण झन् तीव्र हुन थालेको भन्दा फरक नपर्ला। आचार्य र डा महतका कमीकमजोरी छैन, सबै ठीक गरे भनेको होइन। उदार आर्थिक नीतिको व्यावहारिक प्रयोगमा उनीहरूका पनि प्रक्रियागत कमजोरी थिए। जसलाई सच्याएर अगाडि बढ्ने अवसर पनि थियो। तर, समाजवादको नाम लिएरै मात्र नेपाली कांग्रेसले वैतरणी पार गर्छ वा समाजवादको गायत्री मन्त्र जपेपछि मात्र निर्वाण प्राप्त हुन्छ भन्ने चेतले आफ्नै पार्टीको नेतृत्वमा प्राप्त उपलब्धि पनि औचित्यहीन बनाएको छ।
आज जुन निजी क्षेत्रको विस्तार छ र जति पनि देशभित्रै रोजगारी सिर्जना भएको छ, त्यसको श्रेय लिन पनि डराउनेले नेपालमा रोजगारी सिर्जना गर्छन् भनेर युवाले कसरी पत्याउँछन्।
अनि, आज बीपी कोइराला भएका भए, के भन्थे होलान्?
त्यसैले, नेपाली कांग्रेसको वामपन्थीकरणमा जति शेरबहादुर देउवालाई दोष दिइन्छ वा दिइएको छ, त्यो भन्दा आजको रूपान्तरित वा पुस्तान्तरित कांग्रेसको पनि कम दोष छैन भन्दा अन्यथा नहोला।
यसबाट विशेष अधिवेशनमार्फत पार्टी कब्जा गरेको आरोप लागेका अनि १५औँ अधिवेशनमा प्रतिद्वन्द्वीविहीन रहेका सभापति गगन थापाको राजनीतिक, आर्थिक वैचारिक प्रतिबद्धतामा वामपन्थीकरणको गन्ध आएको आरोप पनि थपिन सक्छ। जुन नेपाली कांग्रेसको रूपान्तरणको मानक बन्नै सक्दैन।
बीपी कोइरालाको ऐतिहासिक दृष्टिकोण भूमि सुधार, निरक्षरता र ग्रामीण गरिबीले निर्देशित युगलाई प्रतिनिधित्व गर्ने ‘हलो जोत्ने किसान’ नेपालीमा केन्द्रित थियो। तर, त्यो उत्पादक थियो।
आजको नेपाली उपभोक्ता मात्र हो।
हिजो जमिन उत्पादनको स्रोत थियो। आज जमिन सिर्फ किनबेच गर्ने एउटा साधन हो। यसले कुनै उत्पादन गर्दैन, न त रोजगारी सिर्जना गर्छ। त्यसैले नेपाली अर्थतन्त्रमा रहेको संरचनात्मक समस्या समाधान गर्न समाजवादले सक्दैन। रोगको पहिचान ठीक भए पनि औषधि गलत भए रोग ठीक हुँदैन।
भलै, प्रतिवेदनमा लेखिएको छ, ‘राज्यले व्यापारी वा मालिकको रूपमा होइन, निष्पक्ष नियामक, सुशासनको संरक्षक, आधुनिक पूर्वाधारको निर्माणकर्ता र गुणस्तरीय सार्वजनिक सेवा प्रदायकको रूपमा काम गर्नुपर्छ।’ तर, विस्तारै राज्यको भूमिका खुम्च्याउँदै लाने र समयानुकूल नीति निर्माणमा मात्रै ध्यान दिने तथा बजारलाई अनुशासित रूपमा सञ्चालन गर्न अनुगमन गर्ने बाँकी बजारलाई छोड्ने हो। पछिल्ला वर्षहरूमा नेपालमा राज्य बलियो तर शासन कमजोर भएको कारण पनि धेरै समस्या आएको हो।
संस्थाहरू कमजोर बनाउने वा बनाउन सघाउने अनि समयानुकूल उदार आर्थिक नीति नअपनाएर समाजवादको व्याख्या गर्दै बस्दा नेपाली कांग्रेस रूपान्तरण हुँदैन।
अन्ततः सिद्धान्तको निरन्तरता तर औजारमा परिवर्तनले निजी क्षेत्रको लगानी, उत्पादकत्व र रोजगारी बढ्दैन। निजी क्षेत्रको लगानी, उत्पादकत्व र रोजगारीजस्ता शब्दहरू नेपालमा सबैभन्दा बढी दुरुपयोग भएका शब्दहरू हुन्। यी शब्दहरू सबै दलले कण्ठ गरेका छन्। तर, व्यवहारमा प्रतिबिम्बित गर्न भने सकेका छैनन्, सकेनन्।
नेपाली कांग्रेसले यदि साँच्चै निजी क्षेत्रले समृद्धि ल्याओस् भन्ने चाहेको हो भने आर्थिक विचारधारालाई वास्तविक रूपमा अद्यावधिक गर्नुपर्छ, परम्परागत समाजवादलाई नयाँ शब्दावलीले ढाकछोप गरेर वा व्याख्यात्मक टिप्पणी थप्दैमा परिवर्तन हुँदैन।
(First published in nepalkhabar.com on October 6, 2026 -- https://nepalkhabar.com/opinion/289087-2026-10-6-20-16-2)

ADB to support expansion of power transmission, battery storage capacity in Nepal through PPP

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has signed two public-private partnership (PPP) -- first of its planned ones -- transaction advisory services agreements with the government to encourage private sector investment in power transmission and battery storage infrastructure.
ADB Country Director for Nepal Arnaud Cauchois and Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA) managing director Dirghayu Kumar Shrestha signed the agreements in Kathmandu, today.
These landmark agreements represent the first transaction advisory services for a power transmission public-private partnership and a standalone utility-scale battery energy storage system in any member country of the bank, according to the multilateral bank. "Through these deals, the bank will assist the NEA with feasibility studies, procurement, tendering, project agreements, and capacity building. The initiatives are projected to mobilise more than $200 million in private sector capital."
Highlighting the energy achievements of the nation, Cauchois noted the rapid expansion of electricity access. "Nepal has made significant progress in providing electricity to its people, with access to power increasing from 58 per cent in 2016 to 99 per cent in 2025," he said, adding that the challenge now is to translate this growth into reliable domestic supply and sustained export capacity. "Achieving this will require the timely expansion of transmission and battery storage infrastructure, with private sector participation playing a critical role in mobilising the capital, expertise, and efficiency needed to deliver these investments at scale."
NEA managing director Shrestha welcomed the collaboration, stating, "We appreciate ADB's partnership through these Transaction Advisory Services Agreements, which will help advance strategically important transmission line projects and battery energy storage systems, attract private sector investment, and support the long-term growth and sustainability of Nepal's power sector."
The first agreement concentrates on the design, financing, construction, operation, and maintenance of a 134-kilometre, 400-kilovolt transmission line spanning Tingla, New Khimti, and Dhalkebar. This project is anticipated to enhance grid reliability, allow for greater integration of renewable energy, and facilitate regional electricity trade.
The second agreement entails the design, financing, installation, and operation of a 100 to 150 megawatt-hour multisite battery energy storage system at selected substations. Operating under a public-private partnership model, this system aims to resolve peak-period grid constraints, support variable renewable energy integration, and provide essential grid management services to ensure system stability.
Together, the projects are expected to strengthen the energy system of Nepal by expanding power transmission and battery storage capacity. The investments will also improve the reliable evacuation of electricity from generation projects and open up private capital mobilisation in the energy sector.