OLI HAS ONLY HIMSELF TO BLAME
READ BEFORE YOU PROCEED:
D2G wears no responsibility of the views published here by the respective Author. This Editorial is used here for Study Purpose. Students are advised to learn the word-meaning, The Art of Writing Skills and understand the crux of this Editorial.
MEANINGS are given in BOLD and ITALIC
Nepal Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s resignation became a fait accompli (a thing that has already happened or been decided before those affected hear about it, leaving them with no option but to accept it) when his continuance in office was dependent on winning a confidence vote in the Constituent Assembly. Instead of suffering the ignominy (public shame or disgrace) of being voted out, he tendered his resignation.
Had he faced the test, he would have realised that the coalition (a temporary alliance for combined action, especially of political parties forming a government) 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 (gratify or indulge (an immoral or distasteful desire or taste or a person with such a desire or taste)) 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 (justify, prove, or reinforce an idea) of India’s Nepal policy.
Oli’s biggest blunder (a stupid or careless mistake) 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 (a very slight difference or variation in color or tone) 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 (exercising power in a cruel or arbitrary way) 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.
#################
