Much has been said and written about CPN (Maoist Centre) Chairperson Pushpa Kamal Dahal's fall and CPN-UML Chairperson KP Sharma Oli's rise to power over the past two weeks or so. That Oli would pull the rug out from under Dahal was almost certain in March itself when the two communist leaders plotted the Nepali Congress's ouster from the government—it was a matter of when, not if. Oli had been scheming all along to be back in Baluwatar. Nevertheless, the odds were not stacked in favour of him, the leader of the second-largest party. Dahal was using every trick in the book to cling to power, and extracting support from Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba, his traditional adversary, was not quite in immediate sight.

Some turns of events then proved to be a godsend for him. As Oli was working on his script for return to Baluwatar, some subtexts emerged. His own concerns amid being called out for some scandals and the internal churn in his party fuelled by former President Bidya Devi Bhandari’s possible return to active politics and the Deubas’ growing unease that skeletons would start tumbling out of their closet.

In a calculated move, Congress President Deuba offered Oli the prime ministerial post on a silver platter.

Oli hastily wove a subterfuge of constitutional amendments “to ensure political stability”. Now Oli and Deuba have made extricating the country out of the perpetual political instability their main agenda, in what looks paradoxical as they actually are largely the drivers of this instability. While the Dahal government was a failure on various fronts, the UML-Congress dispensation inspires little hope—a look at the faces in the Oli Cabinet speaks volumes.

“Nationalist” Oli

When Oli first became prime minister in 2015, the country was already on course to hold the first general elections in 2017 under the new constitution. He employed India’s border blockade following the promulgation of the constitution to mould his image into a nationalist leader. The UML-Maoist merger deal made him the most powerful prime minister in democratic Nepal after the elections.

During his first stint in 2015-16, in response to the blockade, he turned to China and signed a slew of deals in Beijing, including on trade, transit and transport. Relations between Nepal and India had already hit the rock bottom. A communist dispensation given by the 2017 elections was clearly to the liking of China.

In an attempt to consolidate his “nationalist” image, Oli, in his second stint, appeared bent on taking India head-on. In response to the publication of the political map by India showing Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura within its territory, Oli moved a constitutional amendment to put the triangular area within the Nepali territory. He even once used the parliamentary pulpit to state that India should replace its national emblem to “Singhameva Jayate” from “Satyameva Jayate”.

Nepal-India relations soured further. But Oli’s misadventures on the domestic front cost him the job. His two House dissolutions were overturned by the Supreme Court. The constitutional bench in July 2021 ordered Deuba’s appointment as prime minister. The communist behemoth built by Oli and Dahal imploded.

Dogged New Delhi

New Delhi’s involvement in Nepali politics, or interventionist approach as many would like to say, has remained the same over the years. The only difference is how the establishment of the day takes it to execution. Oli’s elevation for the top job this time comes on the heels of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s third consecutive term, albeit with a subdued mandate. Nevertheless, New Delhi’s foreign policy is unlikely to change, nor will there be any significant difference in the cloak-and-dagger moves. Conjectures are already rife in Kathmandu over the “sudden” regime change and how Oli and Deuba upstaged Dahal, less than a month after he returned from New Delhi after attending Modi’s oath.

New Delhi’s position on Nepal’s constitution, too, remains the same—ever since it made a terse response of “noted” to date—even as it maintains that it’s up to the Nepalis to decide on their course of action. But the reality is far cry from what it says. The underlying motives are evident from Hindutva activism seen in Nepal. Actors of different colours and stripes are already in action in Nepal—some are bent on scrapping federalism, others demanding reinstatement of the country as a Hindu state and the monarchy.

The state of play

That India must treat Nepal in equal terms is a fact that goes without saying; it should, and that's how it should be. But what's also true is that the problem in large part lies with Nepali political actors themselves who are perpetually in quest for New Delhi's blessings—when they are in power and when they are not. The tendency of Nepali politicians to look at things in a binary of New Delhi or Beijing is also the bane of Nepal. There clearly has been a lack of agency among Nepali leaders, and this, too, tends to play a part in inviting interference, seen in recent years from the north as well.

With Oli back in power, some sections expect that Oli, in his old avatar, will rise up to India and speak up for Nepal. He should. But it's quite unlikely. Self-doubting Nepali politicians tend to be subservient and servile, and Oli is no exception even though he has displayed adventurism on a couple of occasions.

Oli has worked hard to stage his comeback. After his overtures seeking to make peace with New Delhi in the past years were repeatedly cold-shouldered, he was running out of patience. Kept at an arm’s length by New Delhi, Oli was becoming more and more alienated. New Delhi remains suspicious about him, while on the domestic front there are worries he might attempt a re-run of his past adventures, even if to prove that his decision to dissolve the House was justified.

Oli knows he must tread carefully. He is well aware that the temerarious acts in the cover of nationalism do not bode well for his own politics. Even though it was Oli who most vocally glorified the constitution, his commitment to it has been feeble. No one knows yet what lies behind Oli’s constitutional amendment ruse. He has just tossed the idea of constitutional amendments also with an ulterior intent of employing it to humour New Delhi. Yes, he is not a milquetoast like Dahal, but he is not also the same swashbuckling Oli from his second stint, or from eight-nine years ago for that matter. Nepalis have already seen the Deubas making a trip to Varanasi and Dahal to Ujjain. Next it could be Oli offering a puja at some other Indian temple. Who knows?