Nepali Communist Party leader Rajendra Pandey on Monday objected to attempts to portray all leaders and activists of older political parties as corrupt, speaking in Kathmandu at the launch of Mahendra Prakash Shivakoti’s books Desh Bikas ko Prastavana and Rajnitik Chetana. Pandey said it was not valid to claim that joining the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) makes a person good while remaining in an older party makes that person bad, and warned against building such a narrative.
Pandey challenges a party-based judgment
Pandey’s central objection was to judging political leaders and activists solely by whether they belong to a newer party or remain with an established one. As he put it, joining the RSP cannot by itself be treated as proof that someone is good, just as staying in an older party cannot automatically be taken as proof that someone is bad.
His remarks addressed a broad portrayal of political party members rather than a specific individual, according to the account of his speech. Pandey cautioned against extending an accusation of corruption to all leaders and activists associated with older parties. His warning was directed at the narrative itself: he argued that party affiliation should not be used as a blanket measure of a person’s character.
The distinction he drew was between judging people as individuals and assigning a positive or negative label to them based on their party. In his view, moving to a different party does not, on its own, establish that a leader is good, and remaining in an older party does not, on its own, establish that a leader is bad. He warned that presenting the contrast in those terms risks turning political affiliation into a substitute for assessing individuals.
Remarks made at a book launch
Pandey made the comments in Kathmandu during the launch of two books by Shivakoti: Desh Bikas ko Prastavana and Rajnitik Chetana. The event provided the setting for his criticism of what he described as an effort to cast leaders and activists from older political parties as corrupt. The available account does not specify further details about the launch or provide additional remarks from the author.
By raising the issue at the event, Pandey used the occasion to caution against a sweeping division between members of newer and older parties. His comments did not amount to a claim that all leaders are free from wrongdoing. Rather, the point reported was that corruption or integrity should not be attributed to every person in a category simply because of the party they belong to.
Warning against a sweeping narrative
Pandey’s statement also rejected the idea that political change in party affiliation should be treated as an automatic verdict on a person. Under the binary he challenged, joining the RSP would be presented as a sign of being good, while remaining in an older party would be presented as a sign of being bad. He said that claim could not be made and warned against creating or promoting such a narrative.
His objection focused on the generalization, not on endorsing one party over another. The remarks, as reported, did not set out a comparison of the parties’ policies or offer a broader assessment of their records. Instead, Pandey’s message was that members of older political parties should not all be branded corrupt and that a person’s party choice alone should not settle judgments about that person.
The warning leaves the emphasis on avoiding blanket labels in political discussion. Pandey’s position was that neither joining a newer party nor staying in an established party is enough, by itself, to define someone’s character. At the Kathmandu book launch, he called for rejecting the simple good-versus-bad framing that he said was being applied to leaders and activists according to their political affiliation.
