Editorial
The Indian media that Prime Minister K.P. Oli chose to speak with in Hindi is perhaps his choice of an audience. That it was aired on the eve of national unification day celebrated spontaneously by Nepali citizens nationwide to the embarrassment of an unwilling Nepali political establishment would seem equally significant. That he has done so with the seal of the prime minister of a country which came into existence two and a half centuries before the republic of India is a remarkable feat for an individual whose seat has been made perpetually rocky by a country which he once alleged was trying to unseat him. Oli has score valuable points once again as a nationalist. That is, for all one knows, part of the purpose of the Indian channel giving him space. But his remarkable stream of consciousness has served him well to present the knowledgeable side of him outside his habitual flippancy. Oli has presented himself well and, although his European history may be weak, his South Asian stream appears very much in tune with the neo-Asian revivalism and Hindu narratives of the day which is welcome. It does take two to tango.
This regardless, the prime minister’s national credentials and assertions have an Achilles’ heel. He is the prime minister of a country which constitutionally denies the country its traditional Hindu identity. He heads a government that would deny his people the official recognition of an individual who created the sovereign state of Nepal. The ideology espoused by the Nepal Communist Party for which he spent a lifetime to finally head the government with is completely out of synch with the themes he so successfully argued for in his interview. And that is where the surrealism takes off. He contravenes the current constitution. No wonder the bulk in the current political mainstream accuses him of regression. Prime Minister Oli robustly defends a state clearly in the midst of ideological doldrums. He has chosen reality over the constitutional confusion that prefers to deny itself its logical place in history. He appears stronger than his constitutional beliefs. That is perhaps why he is in a constitutional mess. Prime Minister is increasingly an anachronism. As is his country, he is surreal. The constitution and the party that flipped him to power has become a burden. He has set scare a parliament that believes he has junked them. Once again, we are in a constitutional mess. His interview projects the image of a cock-sure helmsman amidst turbulent waters. The turbulence is for sure, what of the helmsman?
Login to add a comment