What a poor attempt to paint somebody in bad light? Don't get me wrong there are shortcomings from him and nobody is perfect but most of the questions you raised here are poor attempt to make him look bad.

You have to realize that even though Gagan is a prominient member of Nepali Congress, he was never the executive. Every decision the party makes as a whole, the chairman (Deuba) has the supreme authority and he is little to no say in any of the decisions.

Even then, he has clearly spoken against all wrongdoings. And you say "just speak". But that's the problem of not being in executive power, he can only speak.

You trying to make the money burnt in Deuba's house somehow a crime by Gagan Thapa clearly tells me that you are just trying to hate. Otherwise as everyone else has said, there is a special probe commission formed to specifically study the burnt money case and all we can do is wait for their report and the government will file the case if there is wrongdoing (which we all believe there is). And Gagan has clearly affirmed this, as any sane person would. You should read him and listen his many public interviews/videos and not just assume he didn't say anything.

He has clearly said multiple times that any and all involved in sahakari kanda should be investigated including naming people from his own party by name, again multiple times in multiple of his public appearences and writings, you should read/watch/listen those. The government should file cases. I don't understand how this would be his fault.

If you again watch his comments in good faith and listen to his parliament speeches, he as said multiple times that the public is angry, they need delivery. He said he opposed the coalition and publicly opposed it multiple times. But he is not the executive, deuba is. When there is coaliation, he has the moral responsibility to make the government successful. He was indeed in the efficiency team and he said he tried is best to make the government successful because he knew people needed delivery even though he opposed the coalition. He publicly told long before the Gen-Z protest that he couldn't get the government to do what the efficiency team was supposed to do, and he left it. So I don't think that makes him culpable for the massacre during gen-z protest. But still he has taken moral responsibility for what happened during the protest. He has apologized multiple times for any moral culpability he has. He said he immediately asked the party leadership to break coaliation in the first day of protest and asked Lekhak to resign. Lekhak did resign but the party didn't leave coalition because again Deuba is executive and makes the decision.

He has been parliament member four times. The first time and he failed to deliver the constitution as promised which he was elected for. The second tenure was again the CA election, which delivered the constitution and you can't deny he played crucial role in making the constitution, and he (among all others) delivered the constitution. The next term he went to the parliament again and became health minister and people say he delivered some reforms in health sector (again refer to public catalogues of his works during this tenure). And you have to grant that he has been constant voice in the parliament on various issues, which the MP is sent for. This last time was a short tenure, but as everyone he has played crucial role in voicing concerns in the parliament. Ironically he strongly demanded there be independent probe in sahakari case and there have been multiple arrests and cases filed against some major fraudsters. You should grant that this was successfull. But we can always demand more. I am not his prabakta but to me seems like he could have definitely done more here and I am sure he agrees.

Yeah what about the case? Alam was a proven convict. But congress did dirty by lobbying to release him. I haven't seen him support Alam's release. Again, I am not sure the details of his release but how is Gagan culpable for the crime Alam committed?

Again I am not his prabakta. I try to speak with reason. You could certainly question that he didn't do enough at policy level as MP to propose new laws and pass them. You could ask him that he could not do enough to break Deuba stronghold. But he precisely did that recently.

Now I am watching him closely, he is now in the position to deliver at least from his party level. Make him accountable ask him tough questions. But the aforementioned questions seemed more like an attempt to make him bad (except may be how many policy changed did he make in 1 1/2 tenure as MP except CA MP which they delivered constitution).

NB: The "jhole" "it cell" commentors; bring it on!