Open Letter to Candidate Sudan Gurung: Demanding Accountability on Activism, Finances, and Political Stance

Respected Sudan Gurung,

Candidate for House of Representatives, Gorkha Constituency No. 1

I work as a journalist by profession and am an ordinary but responsible voter in Gorkha Constituency No. 1 for the House of Representatives. I am writing this open letter not primarily in my professional capacity, but as a constituent of your electoral area.

This open letter is not an expression of personal grievance, prejudice, partisan agenda, or a planned political attack. I hope you will not perceive it as such. This letter will serve as a document of questions a citizen must publicly ask a candidate before casting their vote. In a democracy, the voter is not a crowd, but a conscious citizen.

Democracy hollows out if conscious citizens do not ask questions. That is why I am writing this letter to you. I hope you will respond to me and voters like me who are asking questions. I trust that your response will be beneficial not only to the constituents of your electoral area but to the general public.

This election is not merely a process to measure the popularity of candidates through crowds, speeches, posters, and social media. It is also a test of ethics, accountability, and responsibility towards the nation. You are participating in this examination. Therefore, this letter is not an attack on your personal life, but a question of accountability regarding the public role you have chosen.

You repeatedly refer to yourself as a 'Gen Z activist,' 'social activist,' and 'representative of change.' These words sound attractive, and the words themselves carry weight. These terms demand sacrifice, transparency, and constant accountability. However, if unanswered, the words you use will prove hollow and could become a curse for this country. The crisis Nepal faces today is largely due to the gap between words and actions.

No one denies the fact that you were born in Chumanubri, a remote area of Gorkha. Being born in a remote place might mark the beginning of a struggle, but it is not the final proof of political legitimacy. The question is what you have learned from that land and what you intend to give back to this land today. It is easy to garner emotional sympathy by invoking one's birthplace, but it is difficult to solve the problems of that land. Voters are looking for solutions, not sympathy.

From the village to Chitwan, then Kathmandu, Thamel, the club industry, social media, networking, and now politics—you call this journey a story of struggle. But in the eyes of many citizens, it appears more like a story of seeking opportunities rather than service, expanding access rather than agitation, and building networks rather than ideology. If this perception is wrong, the responsibility to clarify it lies with you. Because silence is not weakness; it is a factor that breeds suspicion.

You were active during national disasters like the earthquake and COVID-19. During that time, you established the organization 'Hami Nepali' (We Nepali). Establishing an organization out of a spirit of service is inherently positive. But service is not just a feeling; it is also a system. Facts have emerged that your organization collected approximately 540 million Nepalese Rupees in aid over the last five years. Raising such a large sum is not ordinary. This is where serious questions about you begin.

Your name being linked to the Free Tibet Movement is another serious issue. Nepal's foreign policy is clear—the One China Policy. This is not the policy of any single party, government, or leader. This is the official policy of the nation.

Where did that 540 million Rupees come from? From which country, organization, and individuals did it originate? For what purpose was it provided, and how was it spent? There has been no clear, documented public answer from you regarding all these questions to date. Transparency is the soul of social service. A body without a soul may appear alive, but it is dead. Not making the audit report public, hiding donor details, and failing to provide clear expenditure details is an insult to transparency. If you are truly a selfless activist, these questions should be easy, not a burden for you.

Your name being linked to the Free Tibet Movement is another serious issue. Nepal's foreign policy is clear—the One China Policy. This is not the policy of any single party, government, or leader. This is the official policy of the nation. Your silence on such a sensitive issue is dangerous. Ambiguity is not acceptable here. You must state clearly whether you are committed to this policy.

If you are committed, you must provide an open and clear clarification regarding your association with the Free Tibet Movement. If you are not committed, it is natural for voters to view you as a risk to national interests. National sovereignty is not an emotional slogan; it is proven by practical commitment.

Another important point is that Gorkha district borders Tibet to the east, west, and north. The constituency from which you are contesting is also connected to the Tibetan border. On the other hand, I expect you are aware of the historical trade and people-to-people relations between Gorkha and Tibet. If you do not give a clear answer regarding your association with the Free Tibet Movement, are you perhaps seeking to turn not only my constituency but the entire Gorkha district into a laboratory for the Free Tibet cause tomorrow? Why would a conscious voter not ask you this question?

Public questions have been raised regarding your proximity and collaboration with controversial business figures like Deepak Bhatta and Sulabh Agrawal. There is a common perception that these names are not symbols of clean business, transparent investment, and ethical capital. If social service becomes tied to self-serving capitalists, it ceases to be service; it becomes the commercialization of service. Religion, ethics, and civic consciousness call such commerce a sin. You must clearly answer whether these associations are coincidences or conscious collaborations.

What is your view on the victims? Do you have any public self-criticism regarding the damages? What will be your role regarding the financial burden of reconstruction?

The damage the nation suffered after the Gen Z movement is extraordinary. Over 84 billion Rupees in physical damage, 54 districts and hundreds of local levels affected, thousands of buildings and vehicles destroyed. Simultaneously, government, private, and community structures were ruined. The physical damage from the Gen Z movement alone amounts to 84.45 billion Rupees. 262 local levels across 54 districts were affected, and 2,168 entities and organizations, 2,671 buildings, and 12,659 vehicles were damaged. The damage to buildings alone is equivalent to 39.31 billion Rupees. The loss incurred by vehicles exceeds 12.93 billion Rupees.

Of the total damage, an estimated 44.93 billion Rupees was in the public sector, 33.54 billion in the private sector, and 5.97 billion in the community sector. An estimated 36.30 billion Rupees will be required to reconstruct government structures damaged during the Gen Z movement. In such a situation, it is not only shameful but also irresponsible for a person calling himself a Gen Z activist to remain silent. Whether the movement caused damage or not may be a subject of debate. But failing to show responsibility towards the damage caused afterward is a moral crime.

Furthermore, what is your view on the victims? Do you have public self-criticism regarding the damages? What will be your role regarding the financial burden of reconstruction? The absence of answers to these questions so far is a serious lapse. Scriptures say: he who sets the fire is also responsible for putting it out. Whether you set the fire is a separate question, but turning your face away upon seeing a house burned by fire is a sin.

In Kathmandu and Pokhara, your name is associated with contracts, business opportunities, and political access. If politics is service, one must maintain distance from business and contracts. Otherwise, politics becomes the rule of self-interest, not service. A person seeking to become a Member of Parliament must publicly clarify their economic interests. In which businesses are you involved, do those businesses receive state contracts, and will you completely detach from those relationships if you become an MP? Voters deserve answers to all these questions.

The direct executive and constitutional amendment were the main agendas during the Gen Z movement. But why did you compromise these agendas for the House of Representatives election?

I expect you will also answer political questions. You were seen distributing water during the demonstrations of the Gen Z youths. How did you suddenly reach a political stature capable of forming and dissolving the government?

Sometimes advocating that 'parties are unnecessary,' sometimes advocating for multi-party democracy, sometimes declaring that leaders should not participate in elections, and ultimately presenting those same parties as the 'last resort.' Such contradictory statements raise questions about your political credibility. At times declaring 'let's dissolve parliament,' at others 'let's reinstate parliament,' sometimes 'we won't let elections happen,' and sometimes 'let's overthrow this entire system'—you express arbitrary views. Why and with what objective do you make such statements?

Moreover, direct executive power and constitutional amendment were the main agendas during the Gen Z movement. But why did you compromise these agendas for the House of Representatives election? The coming House of Representatives also cannot amend the constitution because amending the constitution requires the National Assembly as well, where you have no representation. If the National Assembly rejects the constitutional amendment agenda, will you agitate again?

If the demands of the Gen Z movement could not be addressed and the structure remained the same, why was parliament dissolved and for what purpose? Was such massive damage to the state necessary just to topple the power of one individual? Have you self-reflected on this?

Gorkha-1 has seen much. Slogans, revolution, assurances, and betrayal. Now the voters are tired. This constituency needs honesty, not miracles.

The important question is: while building your identity as an activist, you ended up becoming a member of the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP). Why did you choose to become a party worker? Becoming a member of a political party is your right. But if you intended to become an RSP leader or were merely eager to become an MP, why was the Gen Z movement necessary? The violence during the first day of the Gen Z movement's demonstration was regrettable and unfortunate. But why do you and the RSP refuse to take responsibility for the violence on the second day and the burning of state assets like Parliament, the Supreme Court, and Singhadarbar, and the resulting damage? While there are suspicions that an activist got trapped by the temptation of becoming an MP based merely on fleeting popularity, devoid of any political agenda or objective, why did you use the Gen Z movement for wrong purposes? Please provide a clear answer to this as well.

In summary, your image appears two-sided. On one side, a social worker; on the other, a player in controversial financial and political networks. Your activities strongly suggest the accusation that you have presented personal ambition, financial interest, and political networking under the guise of social service. It is clear that you are currently engaged in a strategic move to keep yourself at the center of the current political-social landscape. This raises questions about your true motives and character.

Gorkha-1 has seen much. Slogans, revolution, assurances, and betrayal. Now the voters are tired. This constituency needs honesty, not miracles. This area is not looking for any god; it is looking for a responsible representative. Therefore, the final question is this: Sudan-ji, how are you different from the others? Do you have the courage to admit mistakes? Is morality and national integrity present only in speeches or also in actions?

If you cannot answer these questions, becoming a candidate may be your right, but seeking votes based on deceit will not be ethical for you. Voters are no longer blind. Voters with vision do not cast their ballots with their eyes shut; rather, they question. History is a witness: power that fails to answer questions does not last.

If you seek votes by speaking the truth, even defeat will be honorable. But if you win based on falsehood, silence, and deceit, that victory will become a curse. Not just for you, but also for the society you seek to represent and the people of that constituency.

Finally, although I have raised the questions that have emerged in the public sphere in written form, these questions are not mine alone; they belong to all voters and all Nepalis. Therefore, I expect you will provide appropriate answers publicly.

As a resident of the district, I have some other questions that should be posed to you. After you answer these questions, I will ask you those questions in another letter. I hope the lamp of accountability is not extinguished within you, and you will indeed answer my questions.

Thank you.

Santosh Dhital

Voter, Gorkha-1