Whether it is the statement of former King Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah, a video by an Indian analyst, or Durga Prasai’s call for protest—these developments all appear to signal a return to regression. However, I urge CPN-UML supporters not to be blinded by emotion. The defeat of one leader does not mean that the UML as a party has collapsed nationwide.

Why is there a tendency to delegitimize elections by labeling others as “anarchists” or by citing incidents like flag burning? Is the conclusion that monarchy is better than a republic? Or is it that the defeat of a particular leader is considered worse than risking the very stability of the nation?

Following rumors and fear-driven narratives is not a solution. Participating in multiparty competition and seeking a mandate through elections is precisely what strengthens a republic. When defeat seems possible, attempting to destabilize the country is neither democratic nor responsible.

For thirty years, three major parties weakened the nation’s institutions, yet there was little panic. But the moment new political forces appear poised to gain a few additional seats, it suddenly feels as though the sky is falling. Why? Is love for position, money, and corruption greater than love for the country? Such narrow thinking deserves strong criticism.

Similarly, accusations that figures like Rabi Lamichhane or Balen Shah would “sell the country” are unfounded and exaggerated. The Nepali people cannot simply be bought or intoxicated into submission. These narratives are strategic attempts to mislead the public. When citizens are driven into confusion and violence, they are in fact jeopardizing their own future.

New political forces, despite their imperfections, have the potential to introduce meaningful change. The ten-year Maoist insurgency and the 2006/07 People’s Movement (Jana Andolan II) undeniably brought transformation. Change is possible, and history proves it.

Even if older parties win elections again, they cannot continue governing in the old ways. The Nepali people have learned to question, to demand accountability, and to seek transparency.

The ideal leadership is one that governs with moral conscience, guided by a deep sense of responsibility and reverence for higher principles, and that treats citizens with the care of a guardian. Our Aamul Parivartan Republican Party has attempted to present such leadership. While the message may not yet have deeply resonated with the broader public, we remain confident that the time will come.
At this critical juncture, new alternatives are preferable to the repetition of failed political patterns. Nepal must move toward timely elections, stable government formation, and national consensus on constitutional reforms. There should be serious consideration of a directly elected executive system in line with the aspirations of Generation Z. Pending corruption cases must be pursued decisively. Federalism should be reviewed objectively, and corruption cases dating back to 1990 must be investigated thoroughly, with accountability ensured.

Without such measures, Nepal risks remaining trapped in poverty and systemic weakness. Let us not allow the burning of a flag to become an excuse to burn our nation’s future.

Conclusion:
# The alternative to a republic cannot be monarchy.
# The alternative to public mandate and elections cannot be authoritarianism.
# The principle of “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” (the world as one family) and religious freedom cannot be replaced by the dominance of a single religion or ethnicity.

This is not the 18th century—it is the 21st century. Let us not be misled by fear and misinformation. If the Nepali people remain vigilant and united, neither India nor the United States can control our sovereignty. Such claims are exaggerated and baseless.
Jai Nepal.

( Bharat Giri is the Chairman of the Aamul Parivartan Republican Party.)