Messing With Us – And More

Biplab Deb (left) and Amit Shah

Some Indian state chief minister jests that the former head of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) suggested two years ago that he planned to expand the party’s presence in Nepal and Sri Lanka, and that’s enough for our foreign minister to lodge a formal protest.
Come on. From the news footage, it’s clear that Tripura Chief Minister Biplab Deb bantered away that bit to rile up his base and butter up Amit Shah in the process. We may be less certain about the mood and motive of Shah, who now is federal home minister. Still, a second-hand slur is hardly tantamount to more than slander.
For Nepalis, the matter is more than something to laugh off – but not that much more. Aren’t some of our own parties already acting as if they are wholly owned subsidiaries of the likes of the BJP and the Indian National Congress?
And let’s not forget that our own Nepali Congress and original Communist Party were born in India. Moreover, don’t our major political parties have allied organizations in Indian cities?
Shah made the comment in 2018 as BJP president, when we had just elected a communist government close to enjoying a two-thirds majority. Opinion in India – political and public – evidently saw that as an advantage for China, largely because of the narrative New Delhi had promoted. The more militant sections of the ruling BJP were probably irate that the Indian National Congress and its buddies on the left had been responsible for the mess.
As it had just lost power, the BJP couldn’t do anything in 2005-2006. But surely it could certainly do something now, the rank and file probably wondered. Maybe Shah thought he had come up with the best response.
Two years later, did Chief Minister Deb just think of sharing that inside story? Not quite. In fact, the BJP may have strategically leaked the news to put some pressure on Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Oli’s government.
After all, we’ve heard how Oli set aside a more right-wing draft while addressing supporters in front of Narayanhity Palace earlier this month. If true, that move came after US Ambassador Randy Berry’s whirlwind briefings on the new American administration’s Nepal policy (something President Joe Biden probably still doesn’t know he has).
New Delhi expected Biden to be more assertive on human rights issues in India and wasn’t disappointed. Confronting the star power of the world’s Gretas, Rihannas and Mias in defense of India’s agitating farmers, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government may have detected a less tenuous link to the new US vice-president’s niece.
The change of guards in Washington DC has resulted in steps toward disengagement along the India-China border, which many Nepalis expect to have a salutary effect here.
Suppose the BJP deliberately leaked this news as a warning to the Oli government to be mindful of Nepal’s immediate neighbors. In that case, our prime minister is certainly not thick-skinned enough these days to have let it pass. (And who has time for more than one Biplab at a time?)
But a formal protest? And we’re still wondering why Modi refused to meet Pradip Gyawali.

Buying Time And Getting By

Photo courtesy: Setopati.com

If you can alienate Chitra Bahadur KC and Keshar Bahadur KC with the same set of words and gestures, count yourself pretty successful.
Did Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Oli hype his Narayanhity appearance just to draw people? Nah. Maybe he was as clueless about the whole affair as the rest of us. Perhaps the prime minister had a few competing rough drafts and used the one he found good enough at the last moment.
To be sure, anti-republicans and anti-federalists ended up the most aggrieved while anti-secularists had some succor. In keeping Narayanity Royal Palace as the backdrop, Oli had anything between three and nine messages, pundits instantly proffered. The audience seemed far more confounded and conflicted.
So what really played out behind the scenes?
There is enough internal and external consensus that the status quo cannot continue. The notion that the country must revert to April 2006, too, seems pretty settled. What’s not is what we do once we’re back there.
Much has changed in the intervening decade and a half to make the revocation of republicanism, federalism and secularism easy. Each principal stakeholder within the country and outside wants to achieve that in a way that would be least damaging – if not most favorable – to its long-term interests.
Just consider how Oli has been read the riot act by the Indians, Chinese and Americans. New Delhi used its external spy agency, while Beijing deployed the military. Scrambling to maintain the initiative, the American ambassador engaged in a hectic Biden briefing even before the new president had assembled his South Asia team in Washington.
Domestically, anti-republicans are divided on the kind of monarchy to be restored but also who should occupy the throne. The anti-federalists are confused over modes of devolution and decentralization. The anti-secularists can’t figure out how expansive enough ‘Omkar Paribar’ is to cover the ground Nepal has traversed since the revocation of its official Hindu identity.
Comparatively, the elements of the original ‘three antis’ campaign – Mao Zedong’s 1951 drive – contained far more coherence (corruption, waste and bureaucracy).
Amid this turmoil, Oli had to do and say something – and he did. Maybe what had been hyped was indeed intended originally, but fell prey to dark machinations and maneuverings. Oli couldn’t have just called off the spectacle.
So the prime minister tried to make best use of the moment, at times crying and contradicting himself at others, but ultimately celebrating. He bought time for himself and the rest of us – even if we’re unsure how long.