As Oli dissolves House, losing the majority to challengers, it’s time for India to manoeuvre the crisis to its advantage

For some time now, Nepalese Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli has been co-opted by China which has turned the Himalayan frontier State against India, challenging us on redrawing borders and questioning our shared civilisational heritage. And now that he is facing a rebellion in his Nepal Communist Party (NCP), with rival contenders  Pushp Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ and Madhav Nepal now claiming majority support — both nurtured by India for a while — he has done the unthinkable. Cornered and desperate, Oli has dissolved the 275-member House of Representatives — the Lower House of the country’s Parliament. Not only that, he got the President to issue a communiqué on elections in April-May with his Government holding forth in the interim. The move is unconstitutional as the Pratinidhi Sabha has a five-year term and cannot be dissolved earlier. There is no provision that allows the Prime Minister to dissolve it unilaterally. Logically, he would have to face a trust vote by his own party, which would suggest the contender, in this case Prachanda, as Prime Minister for the remaining term. Of course, the matter is pending before Nepal’s Supreme Court. An adverse verdict would mean he will have to resign. If not, he would continue until the summer elections. The dissension in the NCP is not new, with India trying to neutralise a hostile Oli by propping up the other two. But every time China has stepped in to broker a deal and keep Oli in the chair, simply because it wants to step up its offensive against India and keep the borders hot. In fact, China couldn’t have asked for a more servile leader than Oli, who got into a map war with us at its behest to further its expansionist agenda. Beijing has been investing heavily in the infrastructure of the Himalayan nation, making it impossible for even the rival faction to ignore its geo-strategic heft. India has been trying to keep Oli in check and rework bilateral ties on more equitable terms with the Army chief, Gen MM Naravane, visiting in November, followed by Foreign Secretary Harsh Shringla. Oli thought that by grandstanding against India, he would have inspired a nationalist tide that would make him an indispensable leader of his party. But not all in his party or the Opposition want to burn bridges with India. Besides, the rival faction is looking for its own political legitimacy. When the NCP was formed in May 2018 by merging the Oli-led Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist) and the Prachanda-led Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre), both leaders had agreed to a power-sharing deal under which both would be Prime Minister for two-and-a-half years. But the deal never got ratified and Oli avoided taking it up with the combined general council, relegating it to a no-priority list and heightening anti-India rhetoric. But Prachanda is restless to realise his political ambition than sacrifice it to a manipulated threat perception from India. This could be an opportunity like no other for India to play upon Prachanda’s anxieties and rebuild its relevance in the ensuing power play. Besides, there has also been a resurgence of pro-royalists, who want a return to monarchy, an aspiration that India could smartly play into, using the sentiment for a Hindu kingdom to strengthen ties with the Narendra Modi Government. Not that Nepal’s monarchy was anti-China but at the moment a swell of opinion in its favour could give India a certain comfort level and help it bargain with both Oli and Prachanda.

Having been a Hindu kingdom and given its contiguity to India, Nepal has had a commonality of interests, which has been one of the reasons for the open borders between both countries. But Oli has been putting up cultural barriers, and is determined to delink any interdependent association with India. He is decidedly hawkish about China, willing to be its vassal State. In fact, China has upped its cultural diplomacy, too, in Nepal, helping it rebuild old temple complexes and shrines that were damaged in the earthquake of 2015. Oli’s latest tirade against India questions Indian claims around the Lipulekh Pass based on varied interpretations of the British-era maps. Though there is a long history of both nations making claims and counterclaims over this area, according to a 1954 treaty signed between them and China, Lipulekh Pass is very much an Indian gateway. Although the new road near it, built by New Delhi to facilitate pilgrim traffic to Kailash Mansarovar, is now one of the quickest links between Delhi and the Tibetan plateau, China, too, has not objected to it. In fact, it recognised India’s sovereignty by agreeing to expand trade through the Pass. India’s over-dependence on historical, spiritual and geographical connect as a leitmotif of diplomacy is being tested severely.  And though we are investing in bilateral relations on more favourable terms and pushing COVID-19 aid, we can’t beat the Chinese, who make up 90 per cent of Nepal’s Foreign Direct Investment.