Oli must de-link his India visit from ‘blockade’
It is unfortunate that Nepal’s Prime Minister KPS Oli has indicated that he would not visit India unless the latter ‘lifted the blockade' it has supposedly enforced on the movements of essential goods from India to Nepal. While he didn't say it in so many words at an interaction with senior representatives of the media in Kathmandu, that seemed to be the message. Keeping the visit on hold is not going to resolve the issue, which is an offshoot of the Nepalese Government's mishandling of the Madhesi agitation.
It does appear that Kathmandu is holding a gun to India's head. Mr Oil's visit, even as ways to facilitate the full movement by road of material from India to Nepal are being found, can actually lead to progress over the contentious matter and dispel misunderstanding. By linking the trip to the lifting of the ‘blockade', Mr Oli is catering to the demands of hardliners within his party and the coalition Government who are more than happy to sustain tensions between the two traditionally friendly countries. Perhaps he believes that coming to India in the midst of the current situation will send a signal that he is ‘succumbing' to New Delhi's ‘strong-arm tactics' or looking the other way at India's ‘high-handedness'. This is so silly. A resolution to the Madhesi agitation has to be worked out by Kathmandu along with leaders of the community.
Once Mr Oli and his Government are able to convince the protesters, the agitation will end, and this will allow for peaceful movement of goods vehicles from India to Nepal. It's as simple as that. The problem is that Kathmandu has been spending more time in blaming New Delhi than in winning over the confidence of the Madhesi leaders. In fact, by holding out on a decision to visit India, the Nepalese Prime Minister is endorsing the position that certain people in his Government have taken — that New Delhi is responsible for fuelling the agitation and then using it as a pretext to block the supply of essential goods and cause inconvenience to the people there. A confrontationist approach is not going to lead anywhere. It is to be hoped that Mr Oli will take the trip to India while ways to resolve the crisis are worked out.
Meanwhile, Kathmandu appears no closer to getting the Madhesis to end their agitation. The hope that the two amendments made to the Constitution would placate the protesters is proving to be premature. The Madhesis group spearheading the unrest has categorically rejected the amendments as being inadequate. On its part, the Government has shown no let-up in its crackdown on the agitators while claiming that the Madhesi demands had been met in full. All of this has further vitiated the atmosphere. Mr Oli has to demonstrate statesmanship and stoop to conquer. It will do him and his Government a great deal of good if he sends out the message that he is willing to talk on the unfulfilled demands with an open mind.