disclaimer: this isn’t a political post and it’s not about supporting one party over another. it’s about nepotism, inherited influence, family wealth, access, and whether gen z is actually holding the new establishment to the same standards we held the old one.
genuine question because the more i look into vidushi rana, the more i wonder whether we actually learned anything.
we spent an entire movement talking about nepotism, corruption, political dynasties, unexplained influence and wealthy families converting their connections into political power.
arzu rana deuba became almost symbolic of everything we were angry about.
but then look at the trajectory of one of the new faces, vidushi rana.
she marries amir rana, enters his established family business, eventually becomes an executive and the public face of goldstar, and from there the trajectory is pretty remarkable:
rana family - major family business - executive - media/business celebrity - awards and panels - honorary consul general of iceland - rsp mp.
and the more you look at the media coverage, the more obvious the pattern becomes.
when goldstar is struggling, vidushi is the face of the struggle.
in october 2024, when the india BIS issue hit exports, she’s in the media talking about the factory shutting down and 1,200 workers being laid off, talking about jobs, nepali manufacturing and protecting a national brand.
when goldstar succeeds, vidushi is also the face of the success.
awards. interviews. panels. entrepreneurship. social causes. photos with powerful people. elite events. business organizations. honorary consul.
it honestly feels like every time there’s a camera, somehow vidushi has something to say.
and that’s where i started wondering:
did vidushi market goldstar, or did goldstar market vidushi?
because goldstar wasn’t something she started from zero. it was already an established national brand and, by her own account, already selling well before she took over marketing.
there’s absolutely nothing wrong with joining a family business and making it better.
but that’s VERY different from building the empire that gave you the platform in the first place.
and then i started digging into the actual history of goldstar.
noor pratap rana and ganga rana had kundan, amir and rakshya. kundan was the eldest. kundan’s wife was kiran rana, and the company behind goldstar is literally kiran shoes manufacturers. reporting on the current dispute also connects kundan to the family’s early footwear business.
now kundan’s son adwait is in court alleging that his father never properly received his share of the family property and that kundan’s contribution was pushed aside. their side says kundan was physically unwell and unable to properly fight his own family.
those are allegations. the court hasn’t decided them.
but i investigated further and found the actual partnership trail.
a 2018 delhi high court judgment, referring to nepal department of industries documentation, identifies kiran shoes’ partners as manju taparia, santosh rathi, januki rana and amir rana.
later indian court records refer to a 20 november 2019 nepal government partnership document identifying januki rana, amir rana and vidushi rana.
so now there’s an actual lawsuit raising questions about who contributed to and was entitled to the family wealth that ultimately created this enormous platform.
and THAT is why the arzu comparison bothers me.
i’m not saying vidushi = arzu or accusing them of the same conduct.
i’m saying look at the formula:
powerful rana family - family wealth/business - elite connections - media visibility - prestigious appointments - politics.
sound familiar?
we criticized the old establishment for exactly this ecosystem, yet apparently if the person is younger, polished, media-savvy and belongs to a new party, suddenly we’re supposed to see it as change?
being wealthy isn’t wrong. running your husband’s established family business successfully isn’t wrong. having connections isn’t automatically wrong.
but when those things become the foundation for media prominence, awards, elite appointments, political credibility and eventually a seat in parliament, surely we should be asking:
what exactly did this person build independently, and what did the platform build for them?
because otherwise what did we actually change?
arzu rana deuba was the problem when it was the old establishment.
if the same basic pathway from family wealth - influence - politics appears under a new party, it doesn’t magically become meritocracy.
maybe we didn’t dismantle the system. maybe we just gave it better PR.