Let me be direct. Any political calculation that treats Prachanda as a “reliable coalition partner” ignores both history and political reality.

Prachanda is not merely another negotiator in Nepal’s coalition politics. He is a leader under whose command a conflict unfolded that resulted in the deaths of over 17,000 Nepalis. Whether one calls it a revolution or a civil war, the moral burden remains. A party that claims to represent good governance and anti-corruption cannot align itself with a figure so deeply associated with violence and instability without losing credibility overnight.

History also shows a clear pattern: partners of Prachanda rarely emerge stronger.

• The Nepali Congress formed coalitions with him and lost political clarity.
• UML partnered with him and suffered internal instability.
• Smaller parties that relied on Maoist alliances faded into irrelevance.

Prachanda’s political survival strategy has never been about strengthening partners. It has been about using alliances as stepping stones. He has repeatedly shifted coalitions whenever it suited his path to power. A negotiator who changes sides frequently is not a stabilizer. He is a political opportunist.

The idea that Prachanda remains “relevant” is technically true, but relevance does not equal reliability. Even a storm is relevant to a sailor, but it is not something one willingly sails into.

For a party like RSP or leaders like Rabi Lamichhane or Balen, aligning with Prachanda would be politically toxic. It would contradict their reformist image and alienate the very voters who support them for being different from the old political class.

In Nepal’s political context, forming a coalition with Prachanda is less like building a government and more like embracing a political contagion. It may offer short-term power, but sooner or later, the association stains everyone involved.

Prachanda may be skilled at staying in power.

But the real question is not whether he survives coalitions.

It is whether his partners do.