 |
| Photo courtesy: Setopati.com |
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.
