Oli's exit plunges Nepal into turmoil

Barely nine months after he took over the reins, Prime Minister K P Sharma Oli has stepped down, plunging Nepal in yet another political crisis. Oli resigned minutes before parliament was to vote on a no-confidence motion that his government was expected to lose. His exit doesn’t come as a surprise. For one, a change in government is nothing new in Nepal; since it became a multi-party democracy in 1990, it has had 23 governments. Oli was the latest victim of the political instability and perpetual power struggles that have come to define Nepal’s fragile democracy. His grip over power was feeble from the start. It was his coalition partners, particularly the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist-Centre) that was calling the shots. The CPN (MC) had been threatening to withdraw support; thus, the collapse of the government was only a matter of time. Importantly, Oli contributed substantially to his government’s collapse. Not only did he fail to properly rehabilitate victims of the 2015 earthquake but also, he continued to ignore Madhesi grievances. Instead of focusing on governance, he stirred the Nepali nationalist cauldron to cling to power.

Oli also fuelled anti-India sentiments and overplayed the China card, which resulted in a significant souring of India-Nepal relations. While many in India expect his exit to improve relations, the scenario is hard to predict as CPN(MC) leader Pushpa Kumar Dahal (Prachanda) is expected to helm the new government. He was pro-China in the past but has signalled willingness to engage Delhi more positively in recent months. Thus, India-Nepal relations are entering a new phase of uncertainty.

The change of government in Ka-thmandu provides India with space to rewrite relations with Nepal. It can draw a lesson or two from China’s diplomacy in South Asia. Beijing’s relations with South Asian countries are stable and strengthening as it has built ties with political parties across the board. Thus, the exit of a party does not spell doom to its influence and interests in that country. This is quite unlike India, which deepens or tones down its engagement of neighbours depending on whether pro-India or anti-India parties are in power there. As Kathmandu readies for its next government,  Delhi’s diplomacy must be aimed not so much at propping up ‘pro-India parties’ as it should focus on furthering India’s security and other interests there. It needs to counter China’s rising influence in Nepal. This will require tackling the deep anti-India sentiment there. Delhi must engage the Nepali people in more positive ways to build a large reservoir of support for India in the Himalayas.