Submit your Article

On Falgun 1 (Feb 13), the day ex-Maoists commemorate the anniversary of the decade-long insurgency, former Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai tweeted a photo.

The photo shows (from left to right) Ram Bahadur Thapa, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Bhattarai and Mohan Baidya in garlands, their right fists punching the air. Curiously, the quartet of top Maoist insurgency-time leaders now find themselves in four different political parties. Before, they were together in CPN (Maoist) and had jointly led the insurgency from 1996 to 2006, with Dahal as the supreme commander of the underground outfit.

Disputes between them started to surface when the Maoists transitioned to peaceful democratic politics, and especially after they came to lead the government following their resounding victory in the 2008 Constituent Assembly elections. Dahal’s relations with his fellow revolutionaries started to sour, too.  

‘Divorce’ with Bhattarai

Among the leaders discussed above, Bhattarai was the last to sever ties with Dahal when he decided to form the Naya Shakti Party under his own leadership following the promulgation of the new constitution in 2015.

Bhattarai apparently ended the two-decade-long working relation with Dahal after it became clear that he would never get to lead the party.

“Bhattarai may not have quit the Maoist party had he gotten a chance to lead it,” says writer and journalist Netra Panthi, who has published a Nepali book titled ‘Divorce’ based on Dahal-Bhattarai relations. “But Dahal gave no hint he was ready to let Bhattarai become chairman anytime soon.”

Mumaram Khanal, a political analyst who left the mother Maoist party in 2005, contrasts Dahal’s reluctance to relinquish power to the willingness of another popular communist leader, the then CPN-UML General Secretary Madan Bhandari, to share power. Bhandari had offered party chairmanship to Manmohan Adhikari even though Bhandari could have easily kept the post for himself. “But Dahal never thought of offering the top job to anyone else,” Khanal adds.

According to other ex-Maoist leaders, Dahal used different stratagems to sideline other leaders and retain his chairmanship. Bhattarai was one of his early victims.

Bhattarai, the SLC examinations topper in 1970 and a PhD holder from Jawaharlal Nehru University, was one of the most influential leaders in the Maoist party and helped attract many youths to the Maoist cause. But Dahal tried to sully Bhattarai’s image right from the start of the insurgency.

“Dahal used to tell party rank and file that although Baburam Bhattarai was not a real communist, he would be useful tool to achieve the revolution’s goals,” a former Maoist leader told ApEx.

Later, Dahal started portraying Bhattarai as someone uncomfortably close to India, which further widened their rift. 

Old differences with Thapa

Ram Bahadur Thapa, Dahal’s top lieutenant during the insurgency, left his former supreme commander in 2012 but then rejoined the mother party following Bhattarai’s 2016 exit. As a reward, Dahal in 2018 nominated Thapa as home minister in the KP Oli-led government.

Less than five years after his patch up with Dahal, Thapa left him again, this time for Oli’s NCP faction.

“Thapa decided to ditch Dahal and side with Oli so that he could retain his ministerial berth. It’s simple as that,” says Lekhnath Neupane, who was until recently a close confidant of Thapa.

Panthi agrees with Neupane’s reading. “He understood that the division between Oli and Dahal was based purely on power calculations and thus he had no compunction in abandoning him,” Panthi says.

Thapa’s relation with Dahal had never been stable, even before the Maoist insurgency. Thapa had first left the Dahal-led party in 1991 to form a new political outfit under Mohan Baidya’s leadership but he had later rejoined the mother party.

During the civil war, Thapa was axed from the Maoist central committee following allegations of sexual misconduct. The allegation was a big hurdle in his ascent up party hierarchy and soured relations with Dahal.

Baidya and the army

Just like Thapa, Mohan Baidya, the top Maoist ideologue during the insurgency, also left Dahal in 2012, following a dispute over the party high command’s decision to send Nepal Army into the UNMIN-supervised Maoist cantonments.

The senior communist leader had come to have major differences with Dahal since the party joined the peace process in 2006. He had also registered many dissenting political papers in the party’s major gatherings.

Along with the army row, Dahal’s pick of ministers in the Baburam Bhattarai-led government in 2011 riled Baidya and other leaders in his camp.

One major reason behind the 2012 Maoist split was disgruntlement of CP Gajurel and Dev Gurung, both of whom were unsatisfied about not getting the ministries of their choice.

Gajural had sought the Ministry of Foreign Affairs but Dahal appointed Narayan Kaji Shrestha in the post. Dahal also picked Barsha Man Pun as Finance Minister, dampening the hope of Dev Gurung, another claimant to the post. “The Maoist party may not have split at the time had Gajurel been made foreign minister,” says Panthi.

Baidya had been arrested in India in 2004 when the Maoist insurgency was at its peak. His faction suspected the party’s changing internal power dynamics—i.e. growing clout of Dahal and Bhattarai—as responsible for his arrest.

All about power with Oli

Ahead of the 2017 parliament polls, long-time arch rivals Oli and Dahal decided to forge an electoral alliance, to the surprise of many. After sweeping federal and provincial polls by winning two-thirds of contested seats, the two communist parties they led merged to form the Nepal Communist Party.

Dahal and Oli projected themselves as two pilots of the NCP jet. But Dahal’s partnership with his former foe didn’t last long as well and the two parted ways less than three years after party unification.

“Dahal made the blunder of merging the Maoist party with Oli’s outfit without thinking about its repercussions. The unity was unlikely to last given the self-centric nature of the two leaders,” says analyst Neupane.

Adds Mumaram Khanal: “Dahal didn’t merge his party with UML because the two parties shared a political ideology. It was so that he could get to be prime minister and party leader after Oli”.

Dahal had also agreed to Oli’s proposal to continue with Bidya Bhandari as the country’s president after Oli assured him the prime minister’s post two and half years later. “Had Dahal agreed with Madhav Nepal and Jhalanath Khanal to pick another candidate for president, the political course today would be vastly different,” Mumaram Khanal says.

Family over party

Dahal could also not do justice to many of his former Maoist colleagues. Chakrapani Khanal, better known by his nom de guerre Baldev, was one of the top commanders of the Maoist army during the insurgency. He got to be a government minister only when his party had joined the government for the seventh time after the start of the peace process.

By then, other Maoist comrades of similar ranks had already become ministers multiple times. The likes of Barshaman Pun, Janardan Sharma, Top Bahadur Rayamajhi and Shakti Basnet were Baldev’s contemporaries yet they seemed to have been repeatedly favored over him.

According to party sources the now-underground Netra Bikram Chand Biplob’s relation with Dahal soured after the Maoist supremo suspected him of leaking the fact that he used to consume alcohol during the insurgency. Chand had been overlooking Dahal’s security details while he was holed up in Rolpa during the last years of the insurgency. 

Likewise, another senior Maoist leader Mani Thapa recently left Dahal’s NCP faction after Oli offered him a ministerial berth, something Dahal had failed to do.

“When the Maoist party got into government, Dahal appointed ministers who could materially enrich the party and not necessarily those who had made the most contribution to the party’s cause,” says Panthi, who is about to publish another book on Nepali politics.

But Dahal does not fail to make big promises. “He promises many things to many people when he is not in power. But then he cannot fulfil all his promises when his party gets to power, alienating many,” says Panthi.

The former Maoist supremo also started to increasingly favor his own kith and kin. His daughter Renu Dahal was largely unknown among Maoist cadres before she was picked by her father to contest the 2013 Constituent Assembly election from Kathmandu-1.

Renu lost, but then she was again fielded as a candidate for mayor of Bharatpur metropolitan in 2017 local elections. Dahal had even forged a poll alliance with Nepali Congress to ensure her victory. Yet Renu was still trailing CPN-UML candidate Devi Gyawali in vote-counting when Maoist representatives at the counting-station started tearing valid ballot papers. There was a reelection and Renu came on top this time.

Likewise, Dahal’s daughter-in-law Bina Magar was appointed the Minister for Water Supply in the Oli cabinet. When PM Oli wanted to remove her owing to her poor job performance and her alleged involvement in irregularities, Dahal made it clear that her removal would be unacceptable.

Dahal’s critics say his first preference while making important appointments are his immediate family members, followed by other relatives, the members of his faction and only then other party members.

Revolutionary no more

All his flaws do not stop his admirers from talking highly of Dahal, and seeing in him a dynamic and pragmatic leader.

Shakti Basnet, a close confidant of Dahal, says Bhattarai, Baidya and Thapa all left the mother party due to their ideological differences and not necessarily because of Dahal.

“Prachanda comrade took a pragmatic political line, and not everyone agreed with it. Yet you cannot deny that Nepali politics has revolved around his agenda since 2006,” Basnet says.

But critics say Dahal’s new pragmatic line is the result of his abandonment of all revolutionary agendas. “Perhaps other leaders are less inspired to follow him as he has now abandoned all his revolutionary agendas. He has started living lavishly and become money-minded and power-hungry,” says Shyam Shrestha, an analyst of left politics.

According to analyst Khanal, Dahal’s unbroken leadership of the Maoist party for over two decades might make him believe he cannot be replaced, and nor can he for the same reason understand the aspirations of others vying for party leadership.

It was unrealistic to expect the NCP to remain intact for long given the high political ambitions of both Oli and Dahal, its two co-chairs. But perhaps Dahal’s signature failures also contributed to the split.

A group of former Maoist combatants, who were once ready to make the ultimate sacrifice for their supreme commander, Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’, is now negotiating with Prime Minister KP Oli to join his faction of the ruling Nepal Communist Party. Some other ex-Maoist commanders and leaders are already with Oli. 

They are taking the side of someone who was once a harsh Maoist critic after Dahal decided to sever ties with Oli, with whom he shared the NCP chairmanship for three years.

Oli had become prime minister with unprecedented powers after the communist coalition he led garnered nearly two-thirds majority in the 2017 general elections. But Oli then gradually started losing the political support for his government. At first, the then Rastriya Janata Party Nepal withdrew its support, accusing the prime minister of reneging on his promise to amend the national charter. Then, at the end of 2019, the Baburam Bhattarai-Upendra Yadav-led Samajbadi Party Nepal left the government, whereupon Oli lost his two-thirds governing majority.

But Oli continued to be powerful in the government as well as in the party.

Differences between the two co-chairmen had started widening two years after the NCP’s formation. After failing to get Oli to abandon his unilateral ways, Dahal sought the support of Madhav Kumar Nepal, who in turn had been alienated after his demotion in party hierarchy, allegedly at Oli’s behest.

Instead of bowing out, Oli kept ignoring the pleas of the NCP dissident faction, which eventually resulted in the party split. As dissident leaders were planning to oust the prime minister by registering a ‘no confidence’ motion against him in the federal parliament, Oli decided to throw out the bathwater in the form of Dahal and Nepal while also ditching the parliament, the baby he was supposed to nurture. 

The House dissolution decision in turn brought major political forces including ruling as well as dissident NCP factions, Nepali Congress, Janata Samajbadi Party Nepal and members of the civil society on the street.

Yet political leaders and cadres are still lining up to join the political force Oli commands. 

What’s the attraction?

Oli welcomed ex-JSPN MP Shivajee Yadav into his party last week, followed by former Maoist leader Prabhu Shah who joined Oli’s team by ditching the Dahal-Nepal faction. A long-time Madhav Nepal loyalist, Satya Narayan Mandal, too, has joined the Oli faction. Sources say other influential Madhesi leaders could also join the same faction, despite the fact that Oli has always been seen as an anti-Madhesi leader.

At the time of the NCP split, former Maoist leader Ram Bahadur Thapa had taken Oli’s side after his mounting differences with Dahal, as had Top Bahadur Rayamajhi and Dawa Tamang. In a bid to attract ex-Maoist leaders into his camp, Oli had conferred ministerial berths on all senior leaders who left Dahal. Shah, Rayamajhi and Lama were all made ministers after quitting Dahal’s team.

The story doesn’t end there. Until a month ago, Shivaji Prasad Kanu, a member of the Dahal-Nepal faction, was protesting against the PM’s ‘unconstitutional’ House dissolution, and he had even burnt his right hand during a torch rally against the move. Then he switched sides, and Oli made him a member of the Land Related Problem Resolution Commission Parsa district chapter.

The government appointed 77 district chiefs as well as members of the land commission’s chapters at January-end. Bina Devi Sharma was made the chairperson of the commission of the same district after she joined Oli from the Dahal-Nepal camp. Earlier, Ramkirhor Singh Parag was made the district chairperson of Nepal Children Association Parsa for a similar switch. 

Oli’s ‘setting’

The case of House dissolution is sub-judice at the Supreme Court, and the Election Commission is weighing claims of both Oli and Dahal-Nepal factions for official recognition. Yet the late-sexagenarian prime minister appears confident he will win both these battles. Oli’s opponents therefore suspect he has already made a ‘setting’.

Chief Election Commission Dinesh Kumar Thapaliya is believed to be loyal to the prime minister. Similarly, Prem Rai, the recently appointed chief of the CIAA, the powerful constitutional anti-graft body, is also an Oli acolyte.

But political analyst Lok Raj Baral doubts Oli’s confidants who are now in key state organs will support him when he finds himself in difficulty. “During the time of the second Jana Andolan, the office-bearers of state organs didn’t support the monarch who had a 250-year legacy. Oli is just a politician,” he says.

This is why, many doubt that even the Supreme Court, which is now supposedly packed with Oli loyalists, will unquestioningly settle the House dissolution case in his favor.

What Oli can count on with greater surety is continued support of President Bidhya Devi Bhandari, who continues to be a staunch backer. Her decision to immediately endorse the House dissolution move had raised questions over her impartiality.

In fact Oli had started consolidating power right after taking office by bringing the National Intelligence Department, the Department of Money Laundering Investigation and other key state offices under the PMO’s direct watch.

He also managed to place his confidants at various state organs, which also became a major bone of contention inside the NCP.

“The erstwhile monarchs used to question the dubious decisions of their prime ministers. But Oli faced no such constraints,” says Mrigendra Bahadur Karki, a professor of political science at Tribhuvan University.

Unconvincing opposition

Political analyst Baral says Oli’s mass rallies are aimed at retaining his core supporters as he is getting politically weaker: “He wants to create an impression among the people as well as among his rivals that he still has mass support”.

But then a sizable section of the NCP, comprised of former CPN-UML leaders and cadres, had never accepted Dahal, a Maoist, as their chairman. They are now celebrating the party split and openly supporting Oli.

Similarly, Oli’s stance during the Indian blockade and constitution making is still popular among a section of the people. On the other hand, they are not convinced with the agendas of Dahal-Nepal faction. “The situation right now is that there is no one to challenge Oli. People see that both Dahal and Nepal have become prime ministers and both have failed to deliver,” says Baral.

Satya Narayan Mandal, who is among Oli’s confidants, claims it is Oli’s honesty that attracts grassroots support. “He is the only leader committed to the country and its people. No other leader can challenge him on this issue,” Mandal says.

He points to the “hundreds of thousands” people who joined the recent rally of the Oli-led faction in Kathmandu. Pushpa Kamal Dahal, however, has termed Oli’s rallies bizarre.

Never before has the country witnessed a sitting prime minister organize a protest rally, Dahal said during a briefing to correspondents of international media in Kathmandu this week. Even as Dahal said this, Madhav Nepal, who as prime minister had strongly retaliated against the Maoist mass protest in Kathmandu in 2010, was sitting by his side. The then head of the UML’s Youth Force, Mahesh Basnet, who had led the retaliation against Maoist encirclement of Kathmandu at the time, is now among Oli’s closest confidants.

Silent foreigners

The Dahal-Nepal faction is now seeking the support of the international community even as the country's close friends have kept mum on House dissolution.

Dahal expressed his discontent over the international community’s silence while addressing a mass rally in Kathmandu on Feb 10.

“Democracy is being murdered in Nepal,” he said. To save it, “we expect support and solidarity from all international community members who support democratic values, especially our neighbor who claims to be the world’s largest democracy”.

Oli too has already approached Kathmandu-based diplomats and briefed them on House dissolution.

In Karki’s words, the US is positive towards Oli given his commitment to the Millennium Challenge Corporation compact. Similarly, Oli has made China happy by opening trade and transit routes with the neighbor. “Moreover, he has tried to woo the BJP base by taking up the Hinduism agenda.”

A journalist who met US ambassador to Nepal Randy Berry last week informed that Berry was waiting for final Supreme Court verdict before commenting on recent developments in Nepal.

Neighboring India and China have thus far not been involved in this saga, having only noted developments here.

Adds Baral, who is also Nepal’s ex-ambassador to India, “The international community may be sitting on the fence for two reasons: Nepal’s future political course is unclear because the issue is still sub-judice; nor is Oli’s calling for an election an undemocratic move in itself”.

Even if the parliament is restored, some see Oli holding on to his premiership with the support of Nepali Congress and other fringe parties. Oli has the backing of at least 83 lawmakers of the dissolved parliament, according to a leader of Dahal-Nepal faction. But it is unclear whether Oli would be able to appease the NC and the JSPN.

But Professor Karki argues that Oli won’t be able to retain his position in the reinstated parliament. “In my understanding, the current street protests are not aimed at overthrowing Oli. Those protesting rather want to show they too enjoy a level of public support,” Karki says. “But if the parliament is restored the opposition forces will be able to easily overthrow Oli.”

Political tensions in the country are simmering. Prime Minister KP Oli seems determined as ever to hang on to power, elections or no elections. His NCP rival faction appears as determined to oust the obdurate prime minister. Meanwhile, the civil society is coalescing against the government. Amid all these developments, the agenda of Hinduism is creeping up political charts.  

Until a few months ago the Kamal Thapa-led Rastriya Prajatantra Party was almost alone in openly and strongly campaigning for the restoration of Nepal as a Hindu state.

Now, many others have joined the fray. There was a pro-Hindu state protest in the Far West in January. Mass rallies have been organized by various loose youth forums in all the country’s major urban hubs, again asking for the restoration of monarchy and/or Hindu state. 

Seeing a sizable youth involvement in these protests, none of which had a direct connection with the Thapa-led RPP, many senior leaders in major parties are having rethink: did they jettison the seemingly popular Hindu state agenda in haste?

Prime Minister KP Oli is one of them. He has in recent times tried to project himself as a guardian of all the protesting youths dissatisfied with the country’s secular status. His interview with an Indian TV news channel outlining Nepal’s historical and religious connections to Hinduism, his recent worship at Pashupati Temple, his decision to build a Ram temple at Chitwan in his bid to establish it as the birthplace of the mythological god—there seems to be a pattern to what he is doing. 

Nepal’s public debate spheres including social media are thus abuzz about whether the communist prime minister is actually thinking of leading a national campaign to restore Hinduism as state religion.

Surendra Pandey, a leader of NCP’s rival Dahal-Nepal faction, has gone so far as to predict that Oli would soon announce restoration of Hindu state as his electoral agenda. (In the mass rally of the NCP Oli faction on Feb 5 Oli kept mum on the agenda.)

Some civil society members who have been demonstrating against House dissolution are also accusing Oli of plotting to reinstate the Hindu state.

Oli’s confidants refute the allegation, saying that Hindu state is a dead agenda. Says Rewati Raman Bhandari, a leader of the NCP Oli faction: “People can assume what they like. But it is not happening. The prime minister’s critics come up with such baseless allegations as they don’t have any other substantial agenda”.

80 percent-Hindu votes?

Oli became not just the first incumbent communist prime minister to worship at Pashupatinath. In the process he also pledged Rs 1 billion from state coffers to install a golden article of worship there.

Many see Oli’s recent tilt to Hinduism as a strategy to draw votes in a country that is 80 percent Hindu. He is doing so as the discredited RPP, they argue, is in no place to cash in on the Hindu agenda.

So Oli has been marketing his decision to avail 101 kg of gold to Pashupatinath. He termed his decision to provide gold to Pashupatinath temple a break in tradition. “My father was not a prime minister, and he used to plow the land. But I became the prime minister. So I am in a place to break with the tradition to do something good,” he said, defending his decision.

Separately, there have been speculations about a tactical alliance between the NCP Oli faction and the RPP and other religious forces. Amid such speculations, Mohan Shrestha, an RPP leader, says he sees Oli’s respect for Hindu sentiments as something positive.

“We welcome his worship at Pashupati. He may have realized that the sentiments of nearly 84 percent Hindus can’t be ignored. Our party sees his new pro-Hindu sentiment as course correction,” he adds.

However, the RPP won’t trust Oli in a rush. “We must wait and watch if his activities are political stunts to draw votes or a long-term strategy to restore the faith of Hindus,” Shrestha adds.

A section of Nepali Congress (NC) leaders has long been campaigning for the restoration of Hindu state. Congress General Secretary Shashank Koirala has in the past asked for a referendum over secularism. As many as 820 of 1,500 NC general convention members had signed a petition demanding a referendum or constitution amendment over the issue two years ago.

One strong Hindu state advocate in Congress party, Laxman Ghimire, says he will back anyone who supports the issue if such support is genuine.

“We will support the cause even if Prachanda jee backs it,” Ghimire says. “And we can only hope that right now Oli jee is genuine about it, or it will spell a disaster for the country.”

Whatever sells

Political Scientist Krishna Pokhrel sees Oli’s loyalty to Hinduism purely as a strategy to draw votes. “Oli and his faction are about to leave mainstream politics as the major political forces are already out on the street protesting his House dissolution move. Hinduism seems to be his survival card,” he says.

According to Pokhrel, Oli’s Hindu tilt goes against the political conviction of someone who took oath of office in the name of people instead of god.

“Oli has a track record of cottoning to issues that sell. For instance he accepted federalism even though he was against it,” Pokhrel says. He suspects a big section of Nepali Congress, including its President Sher Bahadur Deuba, could also back the Hindu state agenda if it starts gaining traction.

Nepali communist leaders traditionally don’t adhere to any religion, just like most of their communist brethren abroad. Modnath Prasrit, an ex-CPN-UML leader, is an exception. Prasrit once lobbied for a Hindu state and chose to distance himself from his party when his agenda was ignored.

“Our tradition and culture are based on Hindu system. We cannot be neutral in such a country. That said, religion shouldn’t be mixed with politics,” Prasrit says now.

Guru Khatiwada of Morang, who claims to have voted for the communist alliance in the last election, doubts a religious agenda will get Oli many votes in the upcoming elections.

“If Oli embraces Hinduism, his critics may provoke indigenous people and people from non-Hindu communities to stand against him.” However, he does admit that the agenda of Hinduism may attract some swing voters.

Keshav Jha, Executive Member of the Janata Samajpati Party, Nepal, which has a hold in Province 2, says Oli may benefit from the Hindu agenda if he dares to push ahead with it into the next elections.

“There is a pro-Hindu sentiment all across the country. Even the Kamal Thapa-led party received a good number of votes in the first Constituent Assembly elections. So KP Oli could benefit from the strategy but the country certainly will not,” he says.

Does he have Indian support?

Yogi Adityanath, Chief Minister of the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh adjoining Nepal, has said that Nepal “benefits while being a Hindu state. People of India, where over a billion population is Hindu, also want the same,” he had told visiting Nepali journalists in July 2019.

In early January, Professor SD Muni, a close observer of political developments in Nepal, had also hinted of such Indian support for Nepal’s Hindu movement in an article for The Hindustan Times.  

“On the sidelines of these developments, India has also fueled and fed Hindutva forces under the leadership of a discarded monarchy, possibly as a ploy in the unfolding realignment of political forces in Nepal,” Muni wrote.

Likewise, retired Indian army major general GD Bakshi, another follower of the Hindu movement in Nepal, tweeted in early December: “Massive massive protest in Nepal for restoration of Hindu rashtra. We must support our brothers and sisters in Nepal. India needs to atone for its sins of supporting the Maoists who have brought that country to ruin”.

Lekhnath Paudel, a Nepali foreign policy expert, thinks the rise of Hindu leaders in neighboring India is certain to influence the Hindu movement in Nepal as well. “The BJP’s political line is to reinstate Hindu state in Nepal. They want to push the agenda by using our political forces,” he says.

Paudel sees Oli’s recent activities as attempts both to appease Indian leadership and to draw votes in future elections.

“KP Oli has made it clear that he would lead the agenda of Hinduism in Nepal. But I don’t think the South has given him any assurance on the issue,” he told APEX.

Political analysts say Oli’s pick of Hinduism as an electoral agenda could lead to a widespread conflict in the absence of a clear roadmap on the issue’s safe-landing.

KP Sharma Oli’s political star rose in 2015 with his co-leadership of constitution-promulgation (along with Sushil Koirala of Nepali Congress). His standing up to India during the 2015-16 border blockade further bolstered his national standing. But his shine seems to be wearing off.

The leader who once vehemently defended the constitution has now been accused of abusing it, even as his decision to dissolve the parliament and call for midterm elections is being tested in the Supreme Court.

Whatever the court’s decision, it is certain to divide the forces involved in constitution-making and promulgation. If the court overturns Oli’s decision, he and his loyalists are likely to criticize the constitution for not allowing the elected prime minister to seek a fresh mandate. They could also question the court’s jurisdiction.  

“Even if the court reinstates the parliament, political forces will be divided for and against its decision. Oli loyalists will criticize the unclear provision in the statute and question the court’s supremacy,” says political analyst CK Lal. “If the apex court doesn’t reinstate the parliament, other forces will protest. Even the court has to decide based on the principle of necessity in the absence of a clear provision in the statute: this represents the constitution’s failure”. Lal is among a handful of analysts who have been proclaiming the new constitution’s death since its promulgation.

Some sections of the society already had grievances against the constitution. Division among its guardians may further encourage internal and external dissident forces that were unhappy with the constitution, according to Lal.

Another political analyst Chandra Dev Bhatta offers a different logic for the constitution’s possible failure.

“There is lack of balance between our political culture and spirit of the constitution. The political culture needed to uphold constitutional behavior is yet to evolve in our country. In such a situation no constitution can function,” he argues.

Nepal has adopted seven constitutions in seven decades, and yet they were all contentious.

Bhatta says Nepal’s power-centric political culture contributes to the constitution’s dysfunctionality. “It creates soft social violence and foments uncertainty."

Lal and Bhatta both agree that as the constitution was promulgated by top political leaders without much discussion in the Constituent Assembly, the statute had a weak foundation right from the start.

Checked constitutional history

The first and second Constituent Assembly (CA) carried intensive debates over whether the prime minister should be allowed to dissolve the parliament. After studying the constitutions of various countries with parliamentary systems, the first CA had suggested some remedies.

The 1990 constitution had given the prime minister absolute authority to dissolve the parliament. The then Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala dissolved the parliament in 1994 after MPs of his own Congress party didn’t support government policy and programs.

CPN-UML’s Manmohan Adhikari became prime minister after Koirala, but without the parliament’s majority support. When Adhikari also decided to dissolve the parliament in 1995, just a year after Koirala, the court overturned the decision. The judiciary had to face a backlash when the Supreme Court ordered the reinstatement of a parliament dissolved by a popular communist prime minister.

Then, again, Sher Bahadur Deuba dissolved the parliament in 2002 paving the way for King Gyanendra’s state take-over.

“When one after another government head started misusing the power to dissolve the House, the Supreme Court started scrutinizing the provision,” recalls NC leader Radheshyam Adhikari. “The new constitution thus included conditions that prevented the prime minister from dissolving parliament when he faced trouble in his party.”

During the constitution-making process, parties and lawmakers carried out intensive debates on ensuring government stability through various measures. The Maoists wanted a directly elected executive president, the NC proposed parliamentary system without giving the prime minister the power to dissolve the House, while the UML lobbied for a directly elected executive prime minister.

The Maoists were the largest party in the first CA, but the assembly failed to deliver a new constitution. In the second CA, Congress emerged the largest party and dominated constitution-making process with its agendas.

The second CA agreed to adopt a parliamentary system with strict conditions on when the prime minister could dissolve the parliament. According to former CA members, the prime minister has the right to dissolve parliament only if the House cannot offer an option for an alternative government.

Against social contract

Over 200 advocates have lined up to argue against House dissolution at the Supreme Court.

Defending the writ petitions registered against the dissolution, advocates argue that if Oli’s move is not overturned, it could lead to a collapse of the new constitution.

Lawyers argue that House dissolution is not just against the spirit of the constitution but also against its preamble which states that the country’s sovereignty rests with the people and the prime minister as such cannot act on his own. PM Oli on the other hand argues that he has called for mid-term polls to let people make their choice.

Legal eagles argue that elected representatives must abide by the social contract theory that lays out obligations of people’s representatives to their voters. If the people are the final source of power, says the theory, the executive elected by people’s representatives can’t use executive authority without their consent.

“New conditions were added on parliament dissolution to give the government more stability and to bar the prime minister from being an autocrat. The recent decision on House dissolution undercuts both motives,” says NC leader Adhikari, a member of the two Constituent Assemblies.

“As one of the signatories to the new constitution, Oli was expected to safeguard the constitution and own up its spirit. Yet he has done the exact opposite,” he adds.

The issue of constitution failure has resurfaced also because of division among forces involved in constitution promulgation.

Nepali Congress is expected to benefit electorally from the ruling party’s split. But it too has been demanding parliament reinstatement. NC leaders say that if the court approves of the prime minister’s move, it could herald another cycle of instability. The precedent would allow future prime ministers to act likewise.

“Oli jee dissolved the parliament without allowing the House to exercise its authority to form an alternative government. He has attacked the main spirit of the new constitution. If Oli’s move is endorsed, this constitution’s life could also be short-lived,” Adhikari says.

Addressing a mass rally in Kathmandu last week, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, leader of dissident Nepal Communist Party (NCP), said: "The prime minister, by dissolving the parliament, has tried to undo the constitution, throw out federalism and derail the peace process."

Constitutional expert Bipin Adhikari has a slightly different take. “The ongoing debate is limited to whether the prime minister has the power to dissolve the parliament without testing the options of forming an alternative government in the House. I hope the court will define it in line with the spirit of the new constitution.” But he disagrees that this represents constitution’s failure. “The majority power in the country is still in favor of this statute”.

Indian hand?

Some suspected the southern neighbor, which had just ‘noted’ the promulgation of Nepal’s new constitution in 2015, of instigating Oli to dissolve the parliament. India had been alienated as Nepali leaders supposedly failed to address its concerns in the new constitution. India then resorted to the infamous blockade.

The prime minister’s House dissolution decision coincided with Nepal visit of Indian Army Chief Manoj Mukund Naravane, and chief of its external intelligence agency the Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW), Samant Goel. This buttressed the argument of India’s direct hand in House dissolution.

“India had just noted the constitution as it had certain reservations. Internally there were dissenting voices and externally our neighbor was not happy about it,” analyst Bhatta adds. “Third, as I said earlier, our political culture and constitutional spirit don’t match. All these factors are causing constitutional problems”.

A section of intelligentsia was already suspicious after Oli decided to incorporate Lipulekh, Limpiadhura and Kalapani in the country’s constitution without holding any talks with India. Even if there were to be a negotiated settlement with India tomorrow, which Nepali government would now dare to amend the constitution to ‘break Nepal’?

CK Lal says: “India may not be involved in fomenting further political instability in Nepal. But it will look to secure its interest whatever transpires next."

The rise of pro-Hindu leaders in India has been interpreted as a threat to secularism. When asked if India could try to revive the Hindu state in Nepal, Lal says instability could give a boost to such illiberal political impulses. “Hindustan may want to reinstate Nepal as Hindu nation while at the same time Nepal’s bureaucracy and conservative forces want to scrap federalism,” Lal says.