Nepal Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s resignation became a fait accompli when his continuance in office was dependent on winning a confidence vote in the Constituent Assembly. Instead of suffering the ignominy of being voted out, he tendered his resignation. Had he faced the test, he would have realised that the coalition he stitched together had fallen apart and many in his own party would have turned against him. Oli has only himself to blame for what has happened in the landlocked Republic. He tried to pander to majoritarianism by driving minorities like the Madhesis to the wall.
In doing so, he cared two hoots for Indian sentiments, though many Nepalese look up to India not just as a neighbour but also as a well-wisher who stands with them through thick and thin. His resignation should, therefore, be seen as a vindication of India’s Nepal policy. Oli’s biggest blunder was to take Kathmandu closer to Beijing, little realising the close connections India had with Nepal for centuries. While Raxaul in India is a few metres away from the Nepal border from where it could procure any item, including fuel, China was hundreds of kilometres away. Even China is believed to have advised him to be more sensible.
For that matter, Maoist leader Prachanda, who is not a great friend of India, too did not feel comfortable with Oli’s policy of yoking Nepal with China. He was for a more nuanced approach towards India, as he has the common sense to see that China can never be as good a trading partner as India. Also, India’s relations with Nepal are not just political, they are cultural and religious as well. When the democratic forces in Nepal suffered at the hands of the tyrannical King’s supporters it was in India that they found shelter. Oli mistakenly thought that the Madhesis were expendable and the purchasing power of the Chinese was a better substitute for India’s hand of friendship.