On the occasion of Madan Bhandari's 74th birth anniversary, his wife and former president Bidya Devi Bhandari, daughters, UML leaders and workers were present in the program held on June 14. There, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli said that Madan Bhandari was also accused of being a 'cooperative thug' and 'having three to four wives'.

Spinning the gist of his statement, he claimed that such allegations were baseless and argued that such allegations were made in an attempt to defeat the UML and its leaders. Even many UML leaders/activists who worked closely with Madan Bhandari show ignorance about this incident.

, mainly because Oli has brought that topic into the limelight at this time, they are also surprised. Because, Madan is now a popular and respected leader in UML or other UML parties. However, in the election speech of 2048, Madan was accused of having three/four wives and he even countered.

The accusation of co-operative fraud is also unproven. UML leaders who are active in Jhapa have publicly denied the case of co-operative fraud. According to the news published in "Online Khabar", in Morang at that time, a joint organization funded by both the government and the people used to distribute food items.

Protesting the distribution system of that organization, 2/300 workers of Male gathered together and looted materials like dal, rice, salt and oil from the organization and distributed them. This was an incident around Dasain of the year 036. Although Madan's house was in Itahara in Morang, he was not in Morang that day. Even though it was an incident that was against the panchayat system, he himself was not involved in it, nor was he planning or consenting to it.

Oli, who claims that Madan has been made the general secretary because of his own efforts, the question has arisen as to why he remembered the allegations that have not been discussed recently. In an informal meeting in which I also participated, Vidya Bhandari said that she was surprised when Oli brought up that topic. He said, 'I myself wondered why he would have brought that up.'

Political speech is a force that not only drives the emotions of activists or people, but also has the power to rewrite history and personalities. Be it Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech to millions of American citizens in 1963 (I Have a Dream) or Winston Churchill's speech in the House of Commons during World War II (We Shall Fight in the Beaches) in 1940, not only people's lives, but also their fortunes and futures changed and shaped the speaker's political stature. But there are some speeches, which can destroy the beliefs that people have built for decades and even tarnish the image of the subject and characters.

Let's talk about Oli's speech. My understanding is that Oli's speeches make headlines, but are hardly worth recording in history. It is Oli's specialty to present topics and events by adding anecdotes, sayings and anecdotes, but there are many examples of how he 'manipulates' topics through this style. Oli is well versed in the ways in which context can be used to make it harmful to others and beneficial to him. 

Why did KP Oli refer to the allegations that are not in discussion these days? In terms of speech style, KP Oli is a careless speaker. But Oli does not raise any topic without meaning and without a well-thought-out intention. Oli, who is holding the role of Prime Minister and wielding sole power within the party, was not speaking at the previous program, he was speaking at a seminar on the ideas of Madan Bhandari himself.

On top of that, Vidya Bhandari, who was in front of him, was announcing her return to UML, the slogan of 'Madan's policy, Vidya's leadership' was being promoted. In such a situation, it seems that recalling the vague allegations against Madan Bhandari is not just a coincidence but a deliberate communication strategy. From the point of view of

communication, this is not a common style. This style used by Oli is called 'innuendo' in English. Which means in Nepali - the style of accusing through signs. "Innuendo" means that the speaker does not directly accuse a subject but indirectly sows the seeds of doubt . Such a speech naturally raises the question in the listener's mind, 'Did something really happen at that time?', when there is no evidence of it. While it is said that there were

ing allegations, it remains unclear who made them, when and why. This style tends to damage the character's image, but is safe to use as it is not directly accusatory. It is also a 'rhetorical shield', an attack hidden within the defense of 'I didn't say it, others said it'.

This type of communication strategy is similar to the style of 'poisoning the well', where even the truth is rendered ineffective by planting seeds of doubt about a person.  Another style of

logic is the ``strawman fallacy'' - setting up an adversary that does not exist and arguing that it has been defeated. In our case, the way to scare away birds and animals is by making straw books in the form of people in the fields. The method used by Oli is close to this style. An attempt to place oneself on the moral high ground by presenting an argument that has struggled with allegations that did not happen and moved on from them.

is not new in politics. There are examples of many leaders using this in the context of Nepal itself. For example, Girijaprasad Koirala took up the subject of 'Grand Design'. There was so much debate about it, but no one could say what it was? Even today it is not clear what is the origin of the 'grand design' that Koirala said, who made that grand design and why it was made.

But even now, leaders sometimes use this word to create a conspiracy and make Paat Patingar. How effective such political communication strategies are can vary from character to character and time to time. When the subject is connected to a sensitive and venerable character, the effect of using such methods can be long-lasting and serious.

A leader like Madan Bhandari, whose political philosophy, organizational ability and moral image is considered a role model for many even today, attaching vague accusations to his name is not only a rhetorical ingenuity, but an intervention of communication in history writing.