Where are we after all the anger and ashes?

History shows us a clear pattern when political forces unite without a shared ideological base, the result is often short-lived power followed by long-term instability.

We have seen this globally.
In Italy, fragile coalitions formed only to defeat a common enemy collapsed repeatedly, producing unstable governments.

In Israel, tactical alliances without ideological cohesion led to constant elections and policy paralysis.
In Pakistan, anti-incumbent coalitions united for removal, not governance resulting in political chaos.

Even in Sri Lanka, temporary political unifications created momentary hope but eventually accelerated institutional breakdown.

Unity, when driven by reaction rather than vision, rarely sustains.

Now, bringing this lens home to Nepal.

The recent unification signals around the Rastriya Swatantra Party, its alliance with Balen Shah, and later association with Kulman Ghising may look refreshing on the surface. New faces coming together is not a problem it is necessary.

But the fundamental question remains:

What is the political base of this unification?

What is the shared ideology, program, or long-term governance framework?

How will this coalition manage power, dissent, and responsibility?

From the outside, Kulman Ghising appears visibly uncomfortable in this alignment almost like a technocrat entering a political space that is slowly suffocating him.

It feels similar to an independent professional placed inside a noisy power room where slogans dominate over systems. One wonders whether he now feels trapped between expectation and compromise.

There are also signs that many party members themselves are not fully satisfied with this decision, which raises another red flag: unity imposed from the top without internal consensus weakens parties from within.

A political party is not formed merely by shared anger.
It is formed on the basis of ideology, policy direction, institutional discipline, and accountability.

Sadly, this recent unification trend seems to rely more on selling negativity against the old than offering clarity for the new. It feeds on frustration, not structure.

Even more troubling is the emotional capital being used the deaths of 74 members of our generation, the ashes of what has burned down, the collective trauma of loss. Pain is real, and anger is justified but can grief alone become a governing philosophy of this alliance?

The question is not whether they can rise.
The real question is how will they govern if they do?
How will they prove that this unity is more than a reaction?
How will they manage institutions, differences, and responsibility?

Because history is unforgiving.
Unification without foundation does not reform politics it only accelerates disappointment.

And Nepal cannot afford another experiment built on emotion alone.