Rishi Gupta

Stung by the tragedy of one or both parents succumbing to the virus, thousands of children stare at an uncertain future, if they have one

The ongoing political instability in Nepal has deteriorated with the Supreme Court’s verdict on June 22. In a big blow to Prime Minister KP Oli, the apex court quashed the appointment of 20 new Ministers in the Oli Cabinet. These Ministers were appointed after Oli managed to crack a deal with a faction of the Janata Samajbadi Party led by Mahanta Thakur and Rajendra Mahto to support his minority Government. The acting Prime Minister, Oli, had appointed these Ministers, including two deputy Prime Ministers, on June 4 and 10. Meanwhile, these Ministers were appointed when the House of Representative stood dissolved, and the Supreme Court was examining a pile of petitions against the House dissolution on May 21. The Supreme Court has stoked the fanfare and enthusiasm among Oli’s supporters for the second time in a row. On February 23, the court had quashed the unilateral move by President Bidya Bhandari to dissolve a functional Parliament and declaration of new elections in March and April. The first House was dissolved in December 2020 after Oli feared that his tussle with Maoist Party chief Prachanda would fall, which eventually happened in May.

However, Oli has been trying to play out the Constitution for months, using the President’s Office. As a result, of this nexus between Oli and Bhandari, Nepal again stands at a crossroads similar to the days of the political transition from monarchy to democracy in 2006. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear hundreds of petitions filed against President Bhandari’s decision to dissolve the House for a second time. While the hopes are high that the court may restore the House, it brings severe administrative challenges to the Government. At present, Oli is left with only five Ministers in his cabinet, including himself in charge of several portfolios. As per the Constitution, Oli should have continued with his previous Cabinet as no new appointment can be made under a dissolved House, or the Government in question has not faced the vote of confidence. However, the power-sharing between Janata Samajbadi Party itself was based on new portfolios and one deputy premiership.

As a result, Oli had asked his Ministers and loyalists in the Cabinet to resign en masse. However, amidst two back-to-back defeats in the apex court, the moral question for Oli has to be his resignation as for the last one year, he has merely been interested in the PMO for his political survival rather than focusing on COVID-19 and acting upon corruption charges levied on his fellow Ministers.

Unreliable Oli:

Many in India believe that New Delhi facilitated the Janata Samajbadi Party’s decision to support Oli. As a result, a long-term critic to India, Oli went on to record to say “differences with India have been resolved”. If this is the case, India has taken the biggest strategic risk by trusting an untrustworthy Oli. For the last five years, Oli has been spitting venom against India’s goodwill in Nepal. From raising the border issue to manipulating cultural and religious facts to suit his ultra-nationalistic outlook, he unilaterally included India’s sovereign territory in a new political map of the country. However, even after everything seemed to be favouring India in Nepal, Oli once again alleged his claim on yoga as a Nepali practice and “not Indian”. While Oli may still hold the powerful office in Nepal, India needs to think beyond him to keep open borders safe and prevent cross-border activities from affecting India’s national security.

Oli is a product of political equations and calculations, and his cord functions as per the political suitability. Therefore, hoping a friendly Oli will be next to impossible task for India. On the other hand, China continues to benefit from political instability in the Himalayan country. Nepal is currently in dire need of the vaccines which it needs to import from global suppliers.

Before the second wave of COVID-19 had hit, India had supplied more than two million doses to Nepal. Under the current scenario, India has its local demand for the vaccine; thereby, export or vaccine grants to other countries are withheld. On the other hand, China promised to supply the second consignment of vaccines with four million doses. Meanwhile, the dragon has shown its unhappiness over media reports on the procurement. It exposes China’s commercial intent in supplying the vaccines at about $10 per dose (Rs 1186 Nepali) than its desired humanitarian intent. Meanwhile, Oli does not seem bothered with Chinese micro-management of Nepalese political affairs, its territorial expansion on the Nepalese soil, brutal policies on Tibetan refugees living in Nepal and artificial humanitarian acts. The two large photographs of Chinese President Xi Jinping continue to grace the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website in Nepal at the cost of deteriorating relations with India.

Conclusion: The political instability in Nepal is the least desired by the people of Nepal under the current circumstances. Before Nepal, there are immediate challenges in terms of medical infrastructure, employment, economic development, infrastructure and leadership, which are clearly not on Oli’s agenda. Therefore, while the people of Nepal await the court’s verdict on the fate of Oli as Prime Minister, the latter himself should pave the way for a stable Nepal by resigning on moral grounds. Also, Nepal needs to understand that China may be a “big brother”, but it is ill prepared to deal with dragon’s ill-intended expansionist outlook where India is an “elder bother” it always needs.

(The author is an ICSSR Doctoral Fellow at the JNU and Visiting Fellow at the Asian Institute of Diplomacy and International Affairs, Kathmandu. The views expressed are personal.)