Throughout the morning on Monday, the news that there was a discussion between Education Minister Vidya Bhattarai and Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli about addressing the demands of the teachers' movement was scattered in the media. Many had predicted that the seven-point draft submitted by the Ministry of Education would be passed by the evening meeting of the Council of Ministers and the teachers' movement would be postponed.

But after some time breaking news started coming that the Minister of Education submitted his resignation to the Prime Minister. It was an ominous sign. 

For two weeks, teachers have been protesting by occupying the main road near Singha Durbar. Although the demands of the teachers are legitimate or illegitimate, it has brought school education to a standstill across the country. Students and parents are frustrated and angry at the prospect of wasting both the new and old academic session. The teachers have been agitating and making compromises for a long time with these demands.

The Parliament has always failed to fulfill the obligation to enact the Education Act to implement the provisions of the federal system after the new constitution was made in the year 2072. Politically speaking, the teachers who are challenging the role of the local government as per the constitutional provisions are the workers of all the main political parties.

Because they are protected by their political leadership no matter what they do, the teachers are using the strength of their organization to make the entire political and legal system of the education sector suitable for them. 

The protest and demonstrations of the Samajwadi Front, the fierce and violent harassment of the royalists, and the movement of the cooperative and microfinance victims are surrounded by teachers who are giving powerful demonstrations and provocative ideas against the government. Meanwhile, local level employees and civil servants are also planning to protest. It was not normal for the education minister to resign when the government was facing all-round difficulties. 

The government should have addressed this before the teacher strike. The main demand was that the Education Act should be promulgated. The Prime Minister and the leaders of the coalition parties could have worked in the winter session if they wanted to pass the bill, which has been pending in the parliament for a long time, in which the ruling coalition has a fierce majority. But nothing was created except the forum to legitimize the winter session ordinance and the teachers arrived in Kathmandu. 

I completely disagree with what the teachers are agitating for now. But it is the task of the government and the ruling coalition to bring it to a smooth stop by fulfilling the necessary and possible demands so as not to prolong it for so long. If necessary, it is the job of the government to seek the support of the opposition.

The Prime Minister, who needs to find an immediate solution to this problem, was heard giving speeches in many occasions and forums to stimulate the teachers. Even the secretariat of the ruling party UML did not act to solve this problem. For this, there was no necessary consensus among the leadership of the coalition party. As the situation worsened, the Minister of Education resigned.

The resignation of the education minister, who is a central member of his own party, at a time when the government is surrounded by problems, has made it easier for those who question the working style and efficiency of the prime minister.

The resignation of the education minister is not a solution to the current problem but is just another symptom. The current problem is also a sign that the accumulated problems from before the formation of the current coalition government have turned upside down. It has also shown that the Congress, UML and even the Maoists, who have led the government in turn, have not been able to identify the basic problems of the country, address them strategically and are now pushing towards a serious crisis.

This incident has conveyed the message that the government's priorities have been lost, people are losing trust, the government has played a role in complicating the situation and overall the government is more focused on technical legitimacy and less on political legitimacy. This is by no means a situation to be optimistic about. It seems that Prime Minister Oli does not want to understand the seriousness of the situation. 

Prime Minister's injuries

No matter who played a role in this situation, Prime Minister Oli has the main role to handle it. He has been Prime Minister for more than 9 months. He has the tremendous support of the Parliament. Not only that, the alliance's big fellow traveler Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba is heard to be fully supporting the government.

Congress central working committee and parliamentary party's calculations, the criticism made by other Congress leaders on the continuation of the government does not make much sense. On top of that, Gagan Thapa himself was active in taking some policy decisions to make the government successful. On the other hand, Comrade Oli is the president who received unlimited institutional support in the history of UML. 

Some leaders of the UML are sometimes heard making speeches saying that the government is under all-round siege. But the opposition to challenge the government in the parliament is in a mathematical position. Street protests do not stop the government from taking decisions. Internally, other forces are making some demonstrations, but they are not in a position to tie the hands and feet of the government.

There is no obstacle for the government to maintain good governance, implement the annual budget, make appointments to vacant posts or complete projects quickly. He does not have to make compromises to remove incompetent ministers and make a competent team so that the chairman of the coalition party is not difficult. At least he is completely free to choose the UML team.

Even in such a situation, why is the government's work not satisfactory? Apart from the arrogance of the royalists, what is stopping the government from addressing the movement, communicating with them? Is the Prime Minister a victim of his own style of work, arrogance and ego to ignore the voice of the people? 

Lately, some questions have definitely been raised within the UML. Among the local factions of the president's supporters, there is also a desire to show Oli's true supporters. But he did not break the chain to succeed the president except in speech and networking.

Recently, Oli's previous influence on public appeal is gradually decreasing and even though the voice of criticism is heard more on social media, this is not the final basis for measuring his influence on public opinion. However, the whispers within the party have spread like wildfire saying that President Oli's appeal ability has decreased and the party does not seem to be proud even of the work of the government.

One of the district leaders of the Shankar group in Pokhara was telling me that Comrade Oli himself does not have faith in the work and leadership ability of General Secretary Shankar Pokharel. Except for a few, the top leaders of the party are either unwilling or unable to defend the work of the government.

When Secretary General Pokharal writes or speaks in defense of the government, it is not seen that he appeals to the party's limited line. Looking at the reactions on the network, it seems that his appeal has also decreased.

The most problematic thing is that there is nothing special about what the Prime Minister or the government has done. It is easy for others to defend the government under the guise of which. Instead, there are more and more examples of things that have not been done and should not have been done, so that the party leaders do not speak in defense of the government as much as possible. This may also have pushed the Prime Minister into an uncomfortable position.

After the start of this tenure of the Prime Minister, his time seems to have been spent walking around making many speeches and inaugurations. He should not have addressed the meetings of the state assembly. Anekavili did not have to go to the inauguration of the general program and insult the opposition day after day. At that time, if the government had spent time on work that needed to be addressed immediately, he would have been very happy. 

It may be because of the lack of a strong leader to claim after Oli in the leadership of the party that some leaders from the secretariat and even the standing committee are trying to establish former president Bidya Bhandari as a possible successor.

Judging that there is no other leader of the stature to possibly replace President Oli in the existing secretariat (to protect the party's interests or to fulfill his aspirations, whatever), Vidya Bhandari herself is revealing that she is active in coming to the leadership from the upcoming convention. This must have signaled that Oli has changed his unchallenged state.

This quickness seen in the second-level leaders of the team created by himself, promoted and protected by himself is also a matter of concern for Oli. But the subject of this equation will not challenge Oli's power until the next Congress. So if he wants, it is still possible to work with results. 

The opposition has done the job of obstructing the Parliament, giving street demonstrations and statements to make it difficult for the Prime Minister. This is his political religion. This cannot be understood and interpreted by the Prime Minister as being uncooperative, that level of discomfort has not been seen. 

In the meantime, the role of some Congress leaders may have troubled the Prime Minister. There is a dual character of being in the government, participating in policy decisions, but trying to appear popular by protesting on the streets and parliament or through the network after the people raise questions about the government's work. 

When the prime minister showed extra 'ego' in the case of Kulman Ghising, the government was defamed enough, for this, Energy Minister Deepak Khadka and Speaker Deuba from the Congress were equally responsible. But even in this, Oli stepped forward and took the blame. Gagan and Vishwaprakash moved forward to look popular by criticizing

. It seems that the Prime Minister alone and the UML will have to bear the loss for the positive work of the coalition government which the Congress will get and for the bad work or no work.

Congress may try to change the alliance by making Oli unpopular and seek votes in the upcoming elections. If this happens, it may cost Oli and UML to build this alliance and cooperate with Congress. And, leaving the government in this way can be registered as a productive event for Oli himself to lose credibility within the party.

As far as the royalist protest is concerned, the morale of the police and the administration has dropped drastically after the fierce demonstration of Chait 15 due to the inability of the police and the administration to assess the situation in time and manage it. The state of public participation in the RPP's demonstration on 7 Baisakh has confirmed that it has not gained power to affect the daily activities of the state.

Bharatiya Sanshapan party and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) are active in creating instability in Nepal. Exaggerated sensationalist reports in the Indian media about royalist activities in Nepal confirm this. But the result is no more than trying to hatch a chick by scratching an egg. 

Even if Delhi tries to use it as a weapon to put pressure on Nepal, Nepali republican civil society has the ability to face their pressure and influence. 

Finally,

Recent developments have raised questions about the efficiency of the government. It has created a debate on whether to continue cooperation among the coalition parties. Some Congress intellectuals and leaders who were initially helping and supporting this government have started speaking against its continuation and saying that it is too much now. Prachanda, by his nature, is sitting with a chisel and a hammer to penetrate the grass.