TODAY, Nepali society is reeling from two types of fear. First is the possibility of the third wave of COVID-19. Second is the possible split of CPN-UML and its impact on our budding federal system. If the nation is hit by the third wave of the pandemic, it may take the lives of many people as most of them have yet to receive even a first dose of the live-saving vaccine. They are equally worried about the bickering within the UML. It is because this is the biggest party in parliament. If it splits into two or more factions, it may deal a serious blow to the hard-earned constitution and federal democratic system. It may dampen our aspirations for stability and development. Being an observer of the political movements for long time, this scribe believes that the UML won’t split. I offer following arguments to prove my hypothesis. Both the establishment and rebel Nepal-Khanal faction are fretting about the possibility of the party division. None of the factions has courage to split the party. Neither Madhav Kumar Nepal nor Jhalanath Khanal can be compared with the late Keshar Jung Rayamajhi and Parshu Narayan Chaudhari. It is needless to say that Nepal and Khanal are visionary theoreticians and leaders with full of conviction of nation building. Immediately after the ninth general convention of the UML, they have been voicing for running the party committees and sister organisations based on the collective leadership. Another proof is that UML chairman KP Sharma Oli is a shrewd leader in the contemporary politics. He can exhale fire balls to burn enemies and also inhale it for the sake of his loyalists. So, as the chairman of the party, he can take any compromising steps to maintain the party unity. Nepal and Khanal have never raised differences on the ground of ideology within UML. They have, rather, raised their concerns at personal level. They consider Janatako Bahudaliya Janbad (people’s multiparty democracy) as the party guiding ideology. The visionary leader Madan Bhandari had propounded people’s multiparty democracy following the downfall of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) in 1989. He espoused new strategies to establish the Marxism-Leninism among the people’s level by sidelining hard-liner theoretical leaders like CP Mainali for good. Therefore, the grudge of Nepal and Khanal can be compared with the resentment expressed by Sher Bahadur Deuba and Bamdev Gautam in their respective parties in the past. Now, both leaders are not only in the mainstream politics, but are also in the respectable positions. The Nepal-Khanal group is not bargaining for power and position, but demanding a word of ‘sorry’ from the chairman for his bullies in the past. Therefore, UML will not split into two. But, if the Nepal-Khanal group leaves the party undermining the aspirations of cadres, voters and well-wishers as Dr. Baburam Bhattarai had betrayed the leftist movement mysteriously, it is beyond our imagination.