On December 20, amidst escalating intra-party conflict within the Nepal Communist Party (NCP) between former Prime Minister (PM) and Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal (or “Prachanda”) and current PM KP Sharma Oli, President Bidya Devi Bhandari announced the dissolution of Parliament at Oli’s behest. The decision has instigated a barrage of opposition from within the party and civil society. This Nepalese political crisis, however, also has implications for actors beyond the country’s borders.
Bhandari’s announcement has generated uneasiness about what these developments mean for India and China, both of whom are keen to expand their influence over their landlocked neighbour. India has abandoned its “big-brother” approach and reiterated its belief that the ongoing crisis is an “internal matter” for Nepal. Meanwhile, China has sent several senior delegations to mediate the issue and bring an end to the political turmoil. However, despite India’s vested interests in the future political situation in Nepal, it has rightly taken a backseat, as it has nothing to lose irrespective of the outcome of the unrest.
One of the seemingly inevitable consequences of this political unrest in Nepal is the expected damage it will have on China’s ambitions in the country, which plays neatly into India’s goals of expanding its sphere of influence while simultaneously restraining China’s ventures into India’s neighbourhood. By convening timely meetings with the several NCP leaders, China aims to keep the party intact and prevent the two warring factions from splitting. This is primarily because of its long-term political interest in sustaining an NCP-led government. In fact, China played a monumental role in the creation of the coalition. In 2018, the Vice Premier of the Chinese Communist Party, Guo Yezhua, was a key player in unifying the Oli-led Community Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) and the Prachanda-led Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) to form the NCP in 2018. China’s obsession with the NCP is driven by its desire to ensure that political parties with similar ideologies to China retain power in Nepal. Hence, instability in the NCP would obstruct China’s aim to use the party to influence Nepalese policies.
Therefore, given his unprecedented pro-China and anti-India stance, China sees keeping PM Oli in power as vital and has thus trained its efforts on attempting to reconcile the differences between Oli and Prachanda. Oli’s moves to distance Nepal from India and move closer to China became evident when he spearheaded the introduction of a controversial map in the Parliament that showed several Indian territories, including Lipulekh, Kalapani, and Limpiyadhura, as Nepalese territory. The map was then approved by the Parliament in May, bringing India-Nepal relations to a new low and pushing Nepal further closer to China.
Keeping this in mind, China is attempting to pressure Oli into withdrawing the presidential order, and use its influence over Prachanda and Madhav Nepal, another prominent leader in the NCP, to allow Oli to complete his five-year tenure. However, the majority of the party members continue to oppose Oli’s retention of his position as the PM. As days of negotiations and discussions pass, it is becoming increasingly clear that Oli will not be able to retain power, even with the support of China. Prachanda, who has a clear-cut majority in the NCP, has already managed to garner support to oust Oli from several critical positions, such as the party’s Chairperson and Parliamentary Party leader. In fact, as per Oli’s own admission, his decision to dissolve the Parliament was in anticipation of a no-confidence motion against him. Without Oli in the seat of power, it is thought that China will no longer have the free hand it currently has in Nepal’s decisionmaking.
With the chances of Oli retaining his position as the country’s PM growing dimmer, China hopes that it will at the very least be able to keep the NCP, which holds a two-thirds majority in the legislature, intact. This would pave the way for Prachanda to take up the reins as PM. This presents a unique opportunity for India to mend its ties with Nepal, which has grown increasingly hostile towards India over the past few months under PM Oli. Prachanda previously served as the PM from 2008 to 2009 and once again from 2016 to 2017. During his first stint, Prachanda leaned heavily towards Beijing, unsettling authorities in New Delhi, who subsequently used their influence on the political elite in Nepal to oust the erstwhile PM from power. For instance, breaking tradition, his first foreign visit as premier was to China, and not India. Thereafter, the issues only deepened, with internal party document declaring India, along with its “brokers”, as enemies of Nepal. He also spearheaded several cultural changes, including replacing Indian priests with Nepali priests, damaging not only political but also cultural ties between the two countries.
Following his India-backed ouster, however, during his second term in office, Prachanda struck a more apologetic tone, as evidenced during this visit to India in 2016, when he expressed his intention to reconcile past differences and deepen political relations. In fact, the Prachanda-led faction has vocally opposed Oli’s aggressive anti-India stand.
The softening of Prachanda’s stand towards India does not negate his ideological and political proximity to China. Nevertheless, it is thought that Prachanda would adopt a more balanced approach than Oli. In fact, even if by some stroke of luck China manages to resolve the intra-party differences and allow Oli to retain his position as PM, this would likely be accompanied by offering some concessions to Madhav Nepal and Prachanda, both of whom have been pressing for a retraction of hostility towards India.
Aside from Prachanda assuming power, the other likely scenario is that the presidential order is retained and Nepal conducts parliamentary elections in the new year. Experts predict that in such a situation, the Nepali Congress (NC) is likely to emerge as the winner of the elections, due in large part to the growing popular unrest surrounding the NCP’s pro-China stand. The NC has historically been a pro-India political party and is expected to take Nepal back to its traditional close-knit relationship with India. With a pro-democracy ideology, the NC has time and again proved its allegiance to India. Just recently, on December 12, Vijay Chauthaiwale, the head of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s foreign affairs cell, met with the President of the NC, Sher Bahadur Deuba. The party also vociferously opposed China’s incursion into Nepalese territories, calling Oli out for his failure to address the issue with China.
Moreover, if the NCP splits and the Prachanda-led faction and the NC have to form an alliance to secure the majority, the NC will act as a moderating force and push Prachanda to adopt a more India-friendly stance. This would be be a significant setback for China’s political and economic ambitions in Nepal, specifically for its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects, which includes the Trans-Himalayan Multi-Dimensional Connectivity Network. This could precipitate a similar situation to what has been seen in the Maldives, where, following the election of India-leaning President Ibrahim Mohamed Solih to replace the pro-China Abdullah Yameen, China’s BRI vision in the country was severely hampered. In fact, in October, following a $400 million deal between India and Maldives for the completion of the Greater Male Connectivity Project, reports emerged that Solih was reconsidering the Free Trade Agreement with China.
For India, while an NC led government is favourable, any of the likely outcomes present a win-win situation, given that PM Oli is unlikely to hold onto power. For all this optimism, though, India’s worries do not end here. Over the past few years, China has used its control over the Nepalese government to not only influence economic and political policies but also Nepalese society. For instance, Beijing offered to pay for the salaries of Mandarin teachers in Nepal, resulting in several private schools making Mandarin a compulsory subject. In the past, India has often used its cultural and linguistic similarities with Nepal as an anchor in its bilateral ties. On the other hand, the language barrier between Nepal and China has historically obstructed business relationships and the smooth flow of labour between the two countries. Hence, despite the rising popular discontent against the Nepalese government’s antagonisation of India, China has set in place a long-term vision to build cultural and linguistic bridges to Nepal to rival India’s. Therefore, beyond the current political crisis, India must be wary of future generations’ proximity—in more ways than one—to China and determine what this means for its brotherhood with Nepal.
Nepal’s Political Crisis Presents an Inevitable Win for India
As KP Sharma Oli’s decision to dissolve the country’s Parliament has driven the country into a political turmoil, India has nothing to lose from Oli’s position as Nepal’s premier being under threat.
December 31, 2020
KP Sharma Oli and Pushpa Kumar Sahal SOURCE: ASSOCIATED PRESS