KP Sharma Oli's Fall From Grace: A Tale Of Power, Opportunism & Blunders

A Fairy Tale Turned Tragic

Ousted Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli’s rise and fall reads less like a sober chronicle of democratic politics and more like a fairy tale gone wrong. What began as the improbable ascent of a man from a modest background into the commanding heights of Nepal’s power structure ended with a dramatic implosion that set the country ablaze? Unlike Cinderella’s happy ending, Oli’s story is one of hubris, miscalculations, and authoritarian impulses that will long be remembered as a cautionary tale in Nepal’s turbulent political history.

Machiavelli in Kathmandu

In many ways, Oli’s political conduct echoed the philosophy of Niccolò Machiavelli in The Prince, where the pursuit of power is justified regardless of the means. Driven by an insatiable ambition, he viewed alliances, ideology, and even Nepal’s long-term interests as expendable tools for securing his grip on the premiership. This belief in ends over means, reminiscent of Machiavelli’s cold calculus, defined Oli’s style of politics and sowed the seeds of his eventual downfall.

Forged in Revolution

Oli’s political journey cannot be separated from the seismic shifts that shook Nepal in the second half of the twentieth century. He was part of a generation forged in the fire of revolution, deeply influenced by Pushpa Kamal Dahal “Prachanda” and the Maoist movement that emerged in the 1990s. Prachanda’s cadres waged a bloody insurgency under the banner of self-determination, seeking to uproot the old feudal order. While the Maoists initially rejected the parliamentary model, Prachanda eventually recalibrated, recognising that durable power in Nepal would only come through democratic engagement. His decision to enter the mainstream built upon earlier struggles, particularly B.P. Koirala’s democratic movement of the early 1960s, which had challenged the entrenched Rana regime and planted the seeds of republican aspirations.

India’s Suspicion and Early Radicalism

Oli rose alongside this tide of transformation, eventually becoming the number two figure in the Communist Party hierarchy. Yet from the start, India looked at the Maoist ferment with suspicion, particularly as the insurgency spilled into border districts of West Bengal. New Delhi viewed these groups as anti-India actors whose revolutionary rhetoric could destabilise its own frontier regions. Oli, while less militant than Prachanda, still bore the imprint of this radicalism, even as he tried to cloak himself in the garb of pragmatic politics.

The Fragile Alliance with Prachanda

The alliance between Oli and Prachanda seemed unbreakable at first. The two men came together to create the Communist Party of Nepal, a force that promised to dominate the country’s political landscape. But in true Nepali fashion, where ideological conviction often dissolves into personal ambition, the partnership fractured. Oli broke away to carve his own outfit, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist), or CPN-UML, setting the stage for his solo climb up the greasy pole of power.

The Relentless Quest for Power

What followed was a relentless pursuit of the prime ministerial chair. Oli served as Prime Minister three times—first briefly in 2015–16, then in 2018 after the left parties swept the elections, and again before his eventual downfall. Each tenure carried the imprint of his sharp tactical skills but also the seeds of his overreach. The most telling betrayal came when he turned his back on Prachanda, the very mentor whose support had propelled him to power. Instead of rewarding loyalty, Oli sought to eclipse his guru, forcing Prachanda to part ways once more.

Opportunism over Principle

In his pursuit of power, Oli showed a willingness to embrace strange bedfellows. He struck alliances with the Nepali Congress, the very party he had once opposed, demonstrating that his sole ideology was survival. Such opportunism weakened his credibility, leaving allies doubtful and opponents vindicated. To many Nepalis, it became clear that Oli’s politics was not about principle but about personal aggrandisement.

Beijing’s Trusted Man

Perhaps the most damaging aspect of his career was his unabashed tilt toward China. Oli positioned himself as Beijing’s most trusted man in Kathmandu, often appearing more loyal to Chinese interests than to Nepal’s own sovereignty. He made multiple trips to China, signing agreements under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) that critics argued saddled the small Himalayan nation with unsustainable commitments. His posturing raised questions about whether Nepal’s fragile democracy was being mortgaged to great-power rivalry.

Nationalist Gambits and Diplomatic Isolation

Oli’s foreign policy theatrics reached their height when he engineered the issuance of a controversial new map of Nepal that incorporated Kalapani, Lipulekh, and Limpiyadhura—three territories claimed by India. The move was calculated to inflame nationalist sentiment and shore up his domestic standing. But the gambit backfired: India dismissed the map outright, worsening bilateral ties and leaving Nepal diplomatically isolated. His further assertion that Sita, the mythological consort of Lord Rama, was born not in Janakpur in India but in Nepal, was another attempt to stir nationalist pride, but it only deepened perceptions of him as a leader willing to play with cultural symbols for political gain.

Failed Reconciliation with Congress

When Oli sensed his fortunes turning, he tried to recalibrate once more, this time reaching out to the Nepali Congress as a coalition partner. But his track record of betrayals and his reputation as an unreliable ally had already eroded trust. The Congress played along tactically but did not save him when the tide of public anger swelled.  

Authoritarian Overreach and Public Fury

Ultimately, it was not just foreign policy missteps or opportunistic alliances that felled Oli, but a series of blunders that alienated the public. His authoritarian streak—seen in attempts to muzzle dissent, ban social media platforms, and govern by decree—created a backlash among Nepal’s young, digitally connected citizens. The lavish lifestyles of political elites, contrasted with the economic hardships of ordinary people, especially unemployed youth, only sharpened the anger. Oli, once seen as a strongman capable of bringing stability, came to be viewed as the embodiment of arrogance and detachment.

Economic Fragility and Street Protests

His fall was accelerated by mismanagement at home. The economy remained fragile, battered by unemployment, in formalisation, and climate-related shocks. Instead of addressing these, Oli chose to concentrate power, surround himself with loyalists, and wage battles against real and imagined enemies. The death knell came when protests erupted across Nepal, with students and urban youth at the forefront. Leaderless yet determined, they rejected the entire political class, and Oli became the lightning rod for their fury.

A Legacy of Wasted Opportunities

In the end, Oli’s story is one of wasted opportunities. He had the stature, the organisational muscle, and the historical moment to lead Nepal toward stability and prosperity. Instead, his legacy will be one of fractured alliances, reckless foreign policy, and authoritarian experiments. His downfall underscores a lesson etched repeatedly in Nepal’s history: no leader, however powerful, can substitute personal ambition for the people’s will. And in a country where democracy has been repeatedly defended on the streets, any leader who forgets this truth courts political oblivion.

(Writer has a six year stint in Nepal where he covered Sino-India-Nepal complex relationship and had a ringside seat to the Himalayan Kingdom's transition into democracy.)

Published on: Saturday, September 13, 2025, 08:48 AM IST