As Nepal reels under shortages of essential supplies just months after a debilitating earthquake brought distress to many of its citizens, the answer to why it is happening depends on to whom the question is posed. Prime Minister K.P. Oli puts the blame on an “economic blockade” by India. But the plains-dweller protesting against the fact that the new Constitution insufficiently addresses the concerns of the Madhesis, pins it on Kathmandu’s insensitivity. New Delhi has meanwhile denied there is any “blockade” and put on Nepal’s ruling establishment the onus of resolving the instability in its southern plains in order to help ease movement of goods across the open border between the two countries. There is some element of truth in all these answers, but in themselves they do not fully explain the reasons for the state of affairs. It is true that economic coercion of the covert kind practised by India at the border has given a fillip to what the Nepali hill elite has taken recourse to for years — anti-India jingoism. At the same time, the fact that even after a six-year-long constitutional deadlock over the question of inclusive federalism the Madhesi concerns have not been sufficiently addressed has heightened the anger in the plains. The grievances are not just against Kathmandu but also the Madhesi politicians for not having sought to match the expectations of the plains. This has caused violent protests in the plains, and hurt cross-border movement.
Mr. Oli put the blame for the situation on Nepal’s southern neighbour, in a televised speech last week. This is an attempt to wriggle out of his government’s responsibility to contain the protests in the Terai by reaching out to address Madhesi concerns. Reactions in the Terai to his remarks suggest that this “nationalist” response by the government has few takers. It is not surprising that Prime Minister Oli and the members of his new Cabinet are not trusted enough by the protesting plains-dwellers. Mr. Oli and his close colleagues in the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) have for long espoused status quoist positions and been least enthusiastic about the country’s transition to a republic and the state restructuring demand. It remains to be seen whether Mr. Oli would be willing to break away from the habitual recourse to nationalism as a ploy to prevent further democratisation in Nepal. This has been a standard tactic but one that has yielded diminishing returns. It was used by different erstwhile monarchs; most recently, the last king, Gyanendra, sought to play the “China card” in order to rebuff domestic and international pressure on him to lift curbs on democratic institutions. For New Delhi, there are a lot more options and ways to register its concern with the instability in Nepal than prolonging the acts of economic coercion at the border. It is high time the major actors both in Kathmandu and New Delhi ended the brinkmanship.
