India’s last hope: Can India trust Nepal’s Leftist alliance?

CPN-UML chairman K P Sharma Oli became the new prime minister of Nepal on February 15 after his Left alliance emerged victo-rious in the parliamentary and local polls concluded recently in Nepal. This is his second stint at the premiership. He was earlier the PM from October 2015 to August 2016. Along with his coalition partner—the CPN-Maoist Centre led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda, his alliance secured 174 seats in the 275-member parliament in the historic provincial and parliamentary polls. It also secured an overwhelming majority in the Upper House with 39 out of the 59 seats. The alliance now has governments in six out of seven provinces in Nepal, with Madhesi parties forming the government in Province number two.

Election agenda

The Left alliance, which was tactically put together to counter the ruling Nepali Congress, fought election on the lines of nationalism, stability and development. Oli, who is seen as having a pro-China tilt, repeatedly stressed on the need for Nepal to have an alternative trade and development partner other than India throughout the election campaigning, won the hearts and minds of the Nepalese who not long ago suffered tremendously due to the unofficial blockage imposed at the Indian border when Oli was the PM the first time.

India threw its weight behind the Madhesi parties, political groups active in the southern plains of Nepal bordering the Indian states of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. During the Madhesh movement, the Hindi-speaking Nepalese from Terai protested the new Constitution, which they claim did not adequately give them representation at the Centre and provincial level. However, the following local and provincial elections were held without adequately addressing the demands of the Terai people.

In absence of a strong election agenda of the NC, the Nepalese voted in favor of the nationalistic agenda of the Left alliance, which in case of Nepal virtually translates into anti-Indian sentiments. Indian involvement in Nepal has been perceived by the local populace as interference in local affairs of a sovereign country and attempts at micro-managing the political affairs of the state.

Oli and India

Since the beginning of the peace process in Nepal in 2005, Oli was seen as a pro-Indian leader in Nepal due to his vehement opposition to inclusion of Maoists in the mainstream. Oli enjoys close and friendly ties with all socialist and Communist leaders of India and was able to give continuity to his age-old links with Indian leadership. All this changed when Oli became the PM and used the China card against India.

Oli has stood against any constitutional amendments at this stage. Given his majority support, it is highly unlikely that any major changes in the constitution would come about in the near future. In fact, the political outfits of Tarai did participate in the last phases of elections and have dominantly come to accept the new constitution.

India’s External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj, who earlier played an important role in obstructing Oli’s nomination as PM, paid a visit to Kathmandu earlier in February and conveyed to Oli that India was more than willing to work with the new government and extend all assistance possible. In a complete U-turn as the Modi government was perceived to have a hostile relation with Oli, PM Modi congratulated him and extended an invitation to him.

Swaraj was the first senior Indian leader to visit Nepal after the conclusion of elections to local bodies, provincial assemblies and federal parliament. For the first time in Indo-Nepal relations, a sitting EAM visited Nepal before the new PM paid an official visit to India. In Nepal, this was observed as a changed stance or a ‘course correction’ by Indian establishment in light of growing rivalry between India and China to claim influence over a smaller neighbor.

Indo-Nepal relations ahead

Although Oli and India have had an adverse relation in the immediate past, it is imperative that both work together for stabilizing the bilateral ties. Although Nepal is expanding its reach northwards, India is its largest trading partner and closest neighbour. The vast scale of people-to-people connect and cultural and language similarities draw a distinction in the bilateral ties which no third country can replace.

Oli has already expressed his desire to start afresh to build better ties with India. The other UML leaders, especially the younger lot, feel that India has “nothing to fear” from the new leadership and that UML is “open to work out a new chapter” in Indo-Nepal relations.

Much will also depend on continuity of UML-Maoist Centre alliance in formulating Nepal’s foreign policy. The Maoists initially gave only outside support to the new government before signing the seven-point agreement on February 19, which is a gentlemen’s agreement. Problems in power-sharing arrangement between Oli and Prachanda have prevented merger of the two Communist parties, without which a full-term for the present government is questionable.

The two leaders have agreed to call the new party Nepal Communist Party and the seven-point deal states that the party’s general convention will take a final call on the party’s ideology. It also says that Oli and Dahal will take turns to become the PM and will evenly split the tenure. Since no concrete timeframe or measures were suggested for the merger, the alliance looks like a fragile unity at the moment.

(The author is a Nepali journalist and researcher based in New Delhi).