“Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.”

— William Shakespeare, Henry IV, Part 2

This timeless observation encapsulates the essence of Gagan Thapa’s political odyssey — a man poised on the brink of power, driven by ambition yet ensnared in the complex maze of party politics. Like many who seek leadership, Thapa’s journey is fraught with tension and frustration, the heavy burden of expectation weighing upon him long before the crown is within his grasp.

As Nepal’s political landscape simmers with uncertainty, Gagan Thapa — the dynamic General Secretary of the Nepali Congress — stands at a pivotal crossroads. Elected amid great enthusiasm during the party’s 14th General Convention, Thapa has cast his sights on loftier ambitions: to become both Nepal’s future Prime Minister and the next President of his party. Yet, caught between his bold public declarations and the intricate realities of intra-party power struggles and coalition politics, Thapa’s dilemma, moments of hubris, and unfulfilled aspirations have become increasingly apparent.

Trapped in a paradox

Thapa has long been perceived as the face of the “new generation” within the Congress party — youthful, articulate, policy-savvy, and capable of connecting with a growing urban and middle-class electorate. His oratory and vision-based politics stand in contrast to the gerontocratic leadership culture that dominates the NC. It is no secret that Thapa eyes both the party presidency and the premiership. However, his path is strewn with contradictions.

Even though Nepali Congress is a key partner in the current coalition government led by CPN-UML Chair KP Sharma Oli, Thapa has at times publicly lambasted the functioning of this alliance. He has criticized the coalition’s inertia, corruption, and policy inconsistency — all while his own party remains a central player in the same government. This dual role — critic and stakeholder — has made him appear inconsistent, even opportunistic.

One day he threatens to pull Congress out of the government, the next day he defends the coalition in the name of political stability. Such vacillation has begun to erode his credibility, even among his own party leaders and supporters.

Powerless frustration

Despite his democratic legitimacy as an elected General Secretary, Gagan Thapa has limited influence over the party’s strategic decisions. The real power remains firmly in the hands of Party President Sher Bahadur Deuba, who has maintained an iron grip over the Nepali Congress for decades through patronage networks, loyalists, and alliance politics.

Thapa may draft proposals for party reform, push for internal democratization, and speak of institutional renewal, but the party machinery barely budges. His repeated calls for empowering youth voices, restructuring party organization, and holding accountable those involved in financial and policy misgovernance have fallen on deaf ears. The old guard simply doesn’t see a need to accommodate his agenda.

His growing frustration became publicly visible when he claimed that “middlemen have access to the Prime Minister’s bedroom,” referring to the prolonged delay in appointing a new Nepal Rastra Bank Governor. It was not just a critique of the coalition government’s misgovernance — it was also a veiled swipe at how his own party leadership enables opacity and patron-client politics.

All talk, no action? 

Senior leaders in the party, including party spokesperson and influential Deuba ally Prakash Sharan Mahat, have openly accused Thapa of indulging in rhetoric without delivering concrete results. Mahat’s statement yesterday that Thapa is “only good at giving speeches, but lacks the ability to execute or unite the party,” echoes a growing sentiment among Deuba loyalists — that Thapa is more style than substance.

Indeed, Thapa’s visibility in media and public forums far exceeds his impact inside the party’s executive decisions. His inability to form lasting coalitions within the Central Working Committee, his failure to persuade Deuba on internal reforms, and his limited ability to influence candidate selection during local and provincial elections — all suggest a leader struggling to translate ambition into power.

Secularism dilemma

In a recent perplexing and disturbing interview with a news portal, Gagan Thapa, who claims to be a liberal, blatantly challenged Nepal’s secular identity by asserting that “a nation has a religion” and therefore cannot be secular. His feeble attempt to redefine “religion” as vague concepts like justice and equality—rather than an actual faith—reveals either a serious misunderstanding or a deliberate distortion of secular principles. This kind of rhetoric is not only intellectually shallow but also politically reckless.

Thapa’s words expose a confusing ideological inconsistency entirely unworthy of a leader of a party that claims to uphold democratic and secular values. Such statements dangerously undermine the constitutional bedrock that guarantees religious freedom and pluralism in Nepal. Worse, they provide ammunition to reactionary and right-wing forces, allowing them to brand both Thapa and his party as regressive and disconnected from Nepal’s painstaking democratic progress.

Even more troubling is that Thapa’s careless stance risks emboldening the nascent rise of right-wing Hindutva in Nepal—a political poison that threatens social harmony and democratic stability. Far from showing leadership, Thapa’s comments reflect political irresponsibility that could severely damage, if not end, his political career.

This episode lays bare a deep and troubling disconnect between Thapa’s personal convictions and the ideological clarity expected from a national leader. Without a steadfast commitment to Nepal’s secular democratic framework, he risks becoming a liability to both his party and the fragile democracy it is supposed to protect.

Public support, party limits

Thapa remains one of the most popular politicians in the country outside the traditional Congress base. His strong showing in Kathmandu-4 during federal elections, his connect with youths and civil society, and his progressive stance on health, education, and governance reforms give him national appeal. But internal party politics in Nepal is less about popularity and more about loyalty, legacy, and factional balance.

The Nepali Congress has historically functioned through vertical patronage chains. Thapa, despite his democratic mandate, is yet to establish a strong internal bloc. He lacks the regional strongholds that older leaders like Shekhar Koirala built over decades. Without a dependable faction of his own, Thapa remains a solo player surrounded by entrenched power centers.

Between compromise and confrontation

Thapa faces a difficult strategic choice. If he continues to toe the line of the establishment in the hope of incremental gain, he risks being swallowed by the system. On the other hand, a frontal challenge to the old guard could trigger an open conflict that might isolate him further, especially if he cannot command a majority among delegates in the next General Convention.

His approach so far has been to walk a tightrope — expressing occasional defiance, but never outright rebellion. This middle path may help him survive in the short term, but it is not yet clear if it will help him thrive. His hesitation to force a leadership transition, despite popular support among younger cadres, may ultimately cost him political capital.

Can he break through?

Despite his current limitations, Gagan Thapa remains one of the few leaders within the Nepali Congress with a coherent vision for reform and governance. His policy work in health and urban development, his global exposure, and his ability to speak the language of evidence-based politics position him uniquely for the future.

If Thapa can organize his support base, build alliances beyond Kathmandu’s intellectual circles, and mobilize provincial Congress leaders disillusioned with Deuba’s leadership, he still stands a chance of capturing the party presidency. From there, his bid for prime minister would gain institutional legitimacy. But that will require a level of strategic patience and internal consensus-building that he has yet to fully master.

A leader in limbo

Gagan Thapa’s political journey is a study in the tension between vision and realpolitik. He has the ambition, the public support, and the intellectual framework to lead the country — but remains trapped in a party culture resistant to change. His dilemma reflects a broader generational conflict within the Nepali Congress and, by extension, Nepali politics: the yearning for reform colliding with the inertia of tradition.

Whether he can convert his frustrations into an organized movement for internal change, or remain a loud but sidelined voice, will be determined in the next Congress General Convention. For now, Gagan Thapa remains a contender for both party leadership and the premiership — a figure with undeniable long-term promise, yet still far from mustering the authority or alliance needed to bring that ambition to fruition.