Grave mistakes around MK Nepal’s premiership and hopes for the future

...so finally our country Nepal has a government. Unfortunately the political events leading to the formation of the current government were intransparent in the least. Right now with an anarchist air blowing through most of the country, having a government no matter in whatever way that has been formed, is an important issue. It is at least as important that our national politics silently realizes what was wrong and makes sure that such things do not be come a culture.
Let us try to analyze what was not very right about the formation of the current government.
The background
Quite frankly the Maoists party had lost grounds to rule. And they at least bowed out gracefully saying that the president’s intervention on the army chief issue (see previous blogs) had created two ruling power centres which should not be in a democracy. Ironically enough, it's the party that was underground for years and was raging an armed war against the state ( of which most politicians of other parties had been a part of in one way or the other for one period or the other) that produced the first example of the willingness to quit power but keep declared values. There has been doubt as to whether the Maoist party of Nepal is actually committed to multiparty democracy but nevertheless their participation in the election means that they were ready to go with multiparty democracy for now and their decision to quit the government has certainly served the sake of democracy.
The Maoists went very strategically- as the president’s controversial moves were challenged in court they decided to disrupt parliamentary proceedings until the president took back his moves. When this did not look like happening they brought in a motion against the president to discuss the issue in the parliament. And finally they gave in after the parliament allowed the then prime minister Prachanda to talk about his issues. Once again the Maoist party’s way of going through with their issue is politically very professional and mature and other parties of the country should not hesitate to learn from them.
Multiple non democratic partices
Now in a transition period where the peace process is very critical and the country has just become a republic in paper finally coming out of the grasps of the monarchy that had actively ruled after brief pauses and therefore still has the state structure well under control, strangely Madhav Kumar Nepal of the UML who had lost the direct election from two constituencies was chosen as the lead candidate for the prime ministers post. Now that is no less than a mockery on the spirit of the republican democracy that bases itself on the constituent assembly election. A consensus had built among most of the parties including the two most experienced parties of the country, the Nepali Congress and the UML. Why would someone who lost popular elections be preferred to lead the nation? All answers escape the thinking of this scribe. And the justification for this, also coming out of the ever power-hungry Girija Koirala's mouth was that Madhav Nepal being the consensus candidate having a majority in the parliament, it was irrelevant whether he had lost popular elections. Now this is a serious thing here. Hypothetically any ex-Panche party or any party that sympathises the king could always make the king a MP and if our ex-Majesty King Gyanendra managed to enter the parliament, I suppose none of us would be willing to bet he could not become prime minister if he wished to. Once in power anything can happen. That’s a very extreme example there but its not impossible. Therefore if the current system of direct and proportional representation of political parties is to stay, there should perhaps be a clause in the constitution saying that the prime minister and the president (and perhaps the ministers too) should have won direct elections. At least they cannot have lost elections.
There have been speculations in the press as to why it had to be Madhav Nepal. Let us not go into guesses. Let us rather go into the way Madhav Nepal was made prime minister. Something shameful happened then too. The parliament actually handed Madhav Nepal a majority outside the parliament. If such practices are to be allowed, why have a parliament building? And a parliament secretariat? And all the staff there? If parliamentarism is to be instutionalised, we need to have opinions and oppositions. That is precisely why we need a parliament. During the process of electing Madhav Nepal from outside the parliament, there was political hooliganism. The Maoists, after being reduced to a minority were not heard at all. That is unfortunate too because all they asked was for the issue of the president’s move to be discussed in the parliament. Now this is an issue that has drawn contradicting responses from various circles. It is therefore a genuine issue to discuss about. Can the head of state president reverse the decision of an executive cabinet? True that there are aspects in it like the cabinet decision wasn’t unanimous etc. But still, it was a decision on cabinet’s paper. Does the president have a right to do what he did? This genuine issue could have been discussed in the parliament and if the non-Maoists in the parliament wanted to support the president they could have and they could either have decided by voting in the parliament or let constitutional experts and the court decide. But in the name of political consensus most of the non-Maoist parties just didn’t let discussions take place in the parliament. This is another big blunder that should not be repeated in the past. There should be room for opposition voices to be heard. And where else to start that if not in the parliament?
Now another blunder is about to happen. The parties in consensus have requested the government to take back the previous governments concerns over the president. How can such things happen? It is simply ridiculous that more mature political parties are trying to go through such ways. It may be justified in the name of consensus but it is against the spirit of democracy. Why is there such a fear about talking about the president’s potential breach of power in the parliament and in court? Why should the president not be held accountable to the people, and therefore the people’s parliament?
A potential confrontation
With politically immature events having taken place and the largest party in the parliament been forced to go for dubious reasons, there is a tension in the air once again. The Maoists are clearly not happy, as no other political party would have been to be in their position right now. With parliamentary parties trying to circumvent the Maoists, it is very likely that the Maoists won’t be willing to accept the current situation. If the so called consensus-parties fail to recognize the Maoists as the largest party in the democratic parliament and give them the respect they deserve, we might well be looking towards a confrontation in the making.
Hope
Let us hope all the parties realize their mistakes and let us hope we all make sure we have learnt from them. Let us hope we all learn to forgive, accept and respect each other, including opposing values and ideals. Let us hope that Nepal prospers. In the name of the poor and the dying let us hope we are all ensured basic needs of life and a safer future for our children.

Solving the Katawal-related crisis

Drama around Katawal's sacking
So then the Maoists decided, as they had tirelessly expressed to the press, the public and political parties alike in what they called "efforts of forging a consensus", to sack Rookumangad Katawal. In a few days of high drama, Katawal denied accepting the letter of his sacking, the president Dr. Yadav reinstated Katawal and the Maoists resigned from the government. Then out came the video showing Prachanda convincing his cadres of how the party command had shown its cleverness during the verification of the then Maoist army and that they would not lose the elections, for they would not let an election happen that they would not win. As if that had not made enough news for a week, Prachanda's "We all know we were seven to eight thousand" while addressing his cadres has caused political parties to continue saying that the Maoists are liars and thugs and that the verification process should be redone taking into account the Maoist chief's statement. At the same time political parleys have intensified and an understanding seems to have been built between the UML and the Congress to create an environment allowing the creation of the next government. The Maoists themselves have been stubbornly demanding that the president correct what they call his mistake (referring to reinstating Katawal) before the formation of the next government can start. Also after a few days of what appear to be unsuccessful attempts to eke support out of the infuriated UML and the always-furious Congress, the Maoists have bluntly labelled other political parties as pawns of the South Bloc and Maoist media is rife with news of an agent of the Indian intelligence RAW present and operating in Nepalese capital. With so much going on, we the poor people of the country are left to try to find the themes in these diverse events such as to be able to find a way of lighting up hope for our beloved country. This piece will be an attempt to ignite that hope amidst the frustration of dishonest and inefficient governance and political culture of the country under which all of us have been suffering.

A real crisis
First things first- we need a government. Whoever shapes it in whatever way, we need one. Now let us see what is going on in that direction. After Prachanda resigned, president Yadav gave the political parties a few days to come up with a proposal on forming a government. Frankly it was too short. Unfortunately for the political parties they had been having too much to do (like commenting on the Prachanda video, meeting Sood etc) and thus it was not enough time to forge an understanding for a majority. Well the president has reacted rightly saying the parties should elect a prime minister from the parliament by majority. But that is coming out to be tough as well, for the Maoists have been disrupting the house.
Disrupting the house is not an act of bravery as such but with a reasonable demand it might be justified. The Maoists are stuck to their demand that the president should take back his move of reinstating Katawal. Now that is obviously a difficult issue which has the possibility of inviting unexpected results (including possibilities of hard and soft coups) if it really happened. So where did things go wrong?
Under a ceremonial presidential system, the sacking of an army chief would have to follow a few constitutional norms. The cabinet would decide to sack the guy and the president would seal the sacking, then it would be declared. The ideal news would possibly read "The president has, under the recommendation of the cabinet, released XY from his duty and responsibility as the army chief of the country". If the president did not like the idea then he would have the possibility of sending back the recommendation to sack or asking time for consultation on the issue. In the Katawal issue things went wrong one after the other. The Maoists declared unilaterally that Katawal has been sacked. That was beyond the norms. True that they had spoken out with the intent very often but that was not enough. They should have forwarded the proposal of sacking Katawal to the president for the presidential seal and their failing that is an indication that although they might be the party best represented in the parliament, they have yet to learn political norms and should try to think of moving together with the other political parties and not just singlehandedly. Such moves will only feed to the other's impressions of the Maoists being a party with a dictatorial mentality.
So the first breach of norm was from the Maoists but then unfortunately the gentlemanly and popular president Yadav happened to practice something that is not clearly written in the constitution as being a right of his. With the president's unconstitutional (probably driven by emotion) move Maoists got what they wanted. Moreover the issue of the constitutionality of the president's move has reached the Supreme Court and there have been divided opinions from different political and civic society leaders. In such a situation it is difficult to expect that the Maoists will let parliamentary activities resume normally. And if that happens the government formation process will suffer.
So in that sense it might appear that the constitutional problem was the president's reinstating Katawal and that if the president reversed that things would be okay. The president has categorically denied doing something like that unless the Supreme Court says his move was invalid. Now frankly our politics has a weird element in it, namely of not accepting decisions of the court if they are unfavourable. The Maoists are no exception to this culture and so it is likely they will protest the court's decision if the president's move is validated. What happens thereafter to the peace process and to parliamentary proceedings is something to be seen then. Say the court said the president made a mistake. That would mean the reinstatement of Katawal will be void, the Maoists would be okay in the short term but what about the fact that their decision was not one that the cabinet was unanimous. This will most probably feed the spirits of the other political parties and problems in the street and the parliament and most importantly in Nepali households will continue.
Thus the Katawal issue as such has invited a real chaos with legal and other dimensions all of which appear to be very complicated to solve.

Dasha from das directions
As the old saying goes, dasha attacks you from das directions. And it seems to have once again.
In addition to the constitutional crisis, the lack of trust among political entities is at a critical low. The Maoists are angry with other political parties for a whole lot of things starting with not agreeing with Katawal's sacking, not opposing the president's move and so on. And the other political parties are angry that they were not listened to on the Katawal issue and more recently very dangerously on the issue of what Prachanda apparently presented as shrewdness to his cadres. All of a sudden demands of reverification are becoming intense and these might as well gain crucial voice from the international community. Such a scenario might put the previous understandings on which the current transitional republican constitution rests on risk. The results of that might be grave.
International interest has been rising (or consistent in cases where it has always been at a maximum) in recent days making the political field very difficult to understand and follow.

How could we get out of this chaos?
It’s a very uneasy situation from where exit seems difficult. But an exit from here, a stable government is what we all need for a start. After all we all want to live with dignity and walk without fear in our streets. And a stable government that establishes a rule of law is the first step towards that. In this wish, we Nepalese people already have a defined goal. And that’s where we can put hope on. We know what we want and we need to figure out how we can get it and how our politicians can facilitate the process.

The Maoists should stop causing trouble in the parliament
The Maoists should realize that, whatever the reason(s), they essentially failed to gain the confidence of the other political parties. Whose policies were at fault is something that we people should be left to decide and that we shall do in the next elections. Since they have failed to garner consensus in crucial issues and have invited constant criticisms (for example for promulgating ordnances extra-parliamentary) they should realize this with the humility that was there in the prime minister's resignation speech.

The President should admit his mistake
One of the problems of the current situation is the president. And unfortunately this man was at a serious fault if one talks with reference to the constitution. The president should realize it was a mistake that he made and possibly resign on moral grounds. His admission of a mistake and resignation should pave the path to withdraw the case against him at the court and the court would be saved from showing what will either way be read as a bias in its decision.

Katawal should go, the next cabinet should decide on the next army chief
If the president admitted his mistake and the Maoists stopped disrupting the parliament, the path for forming a new government would open but the issue that caused all the havoc is still there. What about Katawal? Because Katawal has not been people friendly while he worked with the king, and has not been government-friendly after the king was gone, Katawal has no right to remain as the army chief. And technically if the president admitted his mistake, Katawal has been sacked already anyway. In either case, Katawal should go and the best he could do is to resign to facilitate the resumption of normal constitutional practices whih have been disturbed.
Once Katawal is out the army chief post will be vacant. That should be left to the next government to fill.
The Prachanda video has to be forgotten
Frankly it is ridiculous that Prachanda talked to his cadres in the tone that has come out. It was a very patronising speech low in intellectual contents. What that however also tells us is that the Maoists fighters' base is not an intellectually strengthened army. The continuing (mis)deeds of the YCL also stands proof to this. This brings us to a very important question- if it was not an intellectually matured political ideology, why did so many people support the Maoists (taking the results of the election as a truth- sorry if you disagree). Moreover why were people ready to fight with the national army with just slippers on and with primitive type weapons? And the answer is that the places where the Maoists started building their party base lacked in essential requirements of life and had been living in hardship for generations. Literally speaking people who joined the Maoist army were young lads who saw no real possibilities in their life. And we have to accept that this is not terrorist mentality but rather the fury borne out of desperation. Therefore it is very important to stop calling the Maoist army terrorist. If we see that they are not terrorists but people looking for a better life it will be easier to see why so many people are in the Maoists cantonments (taking for granted that they were not all real fighters). Let us imagine for ourselves the pathetic situation where we find it better to be in the cantonment, labelled as a Maoist fighter, for if the leaders gave us what they promised we would soon be employed in the army! (And as we all know being an army man is a matter of social and economic privilege in rural Nepal.) Seeing things in this vein might help us understand the people in the cantonments and not flatly label them as goons or thugs or terrorists. Let us not forget that most of them are certainly not there by wish.
Then let us imagine Prachanda was right when he said there were just seven to eight thousand fighters. Asking for a reverification means not only a huge logistic and economic problem but also amounts to not recognizing one's own signatures. The verification was done through the UNMIN with the representation of all major political parties. If the Maoists could still escape with lies, then sadly but honestly we should all accept we have been fooled by a genius liar. And frankly we have moved further from there. Let us try to make things better from here on.
Candidly speaking I was not at all surprised by the video. It was an internal thing of the party and I am overwhelmed by the amount of things that comes out of political parties and its leaders publicly. I would be lying to myself if I believed that fair games are being played inside. Of course that is no excuse for dirty games but I believe that we should go from outside to inside- for us at this difficult situation in time, it would already be a great deal if politicians stuck to what they said in public a few days back.
Then again it was a party internal thing of a party that has been consistently talking of a communist republic. Of a party that has recently come to the surface after over a decade of underground politics and war against the state structure. Therefore it is perhaps folly to expect them to change their ideologies overnight. To the people it is a matter of ease that they have come to surface politics at least and participated in an election that was overseen by national and international observers.

We need a government soon
If every one of us accepted our weaknesses it would become easier to find a common way out of the crisis because after all we know best what culprits we are and we do know what we all want- namely a functioning democracy. So if the Maoists, the president, other political parties and the army are truly keen to see the current crisis diffused we can move forward from here and the focus must be on forming the next government as soon as possible. Dangerous differences are appearing between and within the major political parties and with the presence of several foreign players whose primary interests are in no way to help us pahades and madhesis live a decent life, we should all be ready to give in, be forgiving and forgetting towards ourselves and form a government which can then start working for the people by shortening the transition period, solving the issue of rehabilitation and/or integration of the Maoist army and very importantly establishing law and order and erasing anarchy.
Krishna used to be with Sudama in stories. So let us hope the Gods are with us, the poor.

raktim.nepali@gmail.com

The Katawal issue and a potential grand design

For a republic in transition full of problems it is surprising that so much time has been spent on the issue of the fate of an army chief who has no people-friendly records. The Maoists’ sacking Mr. Katawal has been misinterpreted but the Maoists deserve praise for producing the first significant instance in the history of multiparty system in our country where a political party in the government has presented itself boldly to say that they want to keep their political values which to them stand above being in the government. The situation in the country has however become very volatile and there is a presumably a lot of manipulative activity going on in the political playground. It’s us, the people, who will potentially suffer. So let us hope the Katawal issue is put to rest, lessons are learnt and we all move on- we have bigger problems facing us!

 

It was in principle right to send Katawal off

Much opinion has come from different quarters so let us try to look at the situation objectively. The Maoists-led government, whatever its weaknesses, was an official government formed through an election and there is a way to go about with the government. Recognizing this is fundamental to creating lasting peace with the rule of a law that speaks for the people. Therefore whoever might be sitting on the chairs, it is important that the government as such is respected and that all national institutions listen to the government. The army chief did not do that. He had been recruiting army men while the government wanted this not to happen, he did not accept the decision of the government to not prolong the eight retiring army men and he clearly was playing very much on grounds that have been created by the differences among our political parties. So he was going beyond his rights.

Let us all not forget in saying that it is right to kick Katawal out we are not accusing him without reasons. For if we wanted to then we could start thinking of the things he did against the people when he was the army chief during the king’s rule. But if we discount Mr. Katawal for all his misdeeds then (may we kindly remind him to count these misdeeds himself) saying his bosses made him do that (may we also remind him here that he had all the right to resign on moral grounds if he shared no interest with the then government), we should also hold him responsible for his recent activities questioning popular supremacy by not following governmental orders. So we can agree that Mr. Katawal does not deserve to be the army chief of a country that is preparing itself for the process of writing a historical constitution with the blood of people, many of whom were actually killed under commands of Mr. Katawal, and then we should agree that it was right to send him off.

 

What now?

Several political and non-political consultations and possibly power bargains are undergoing right now. Things will probably get clearer once these consultations come up with the first round of results including what the president thinks of the current situation and whether he actually sticks to his ceremonial role and seals the sacking. Let us hope a clearer picture will hopefully have emerged by the time this article is out.

 

What if Katawal dares to stage a coup?

Katawal has denied accepting the sacking letter (in fact another count of refusal of government authority) and is presumably involved in serious discussions, primarily with army men. There has been speculation that he might try to stage a military coup? Even if that is true it this will not happen just yet for he will most certainly wait for more official words to his sacking. If need arises he might try a military coup as a last-ditch effort to have more power in old age. If a successful coup does happen the political parties would have to come together again (which they will, as they have done in the past against the king) and fight against the regime. But given the international backing that has collected behind Katawal, it would be a matter of shame for his international supporters if he attempted a hardcore military coup. The likelihood of a coup as a part of a grand design (see below) with president Yadav going beyond his constitutinal rights in which Katawal could stay on is however not negligible.

 

Could the Maoists try to grab state power?

If it emerges that the Maoists have to go, one could argue that depending upon the emerging new equations the Maoists might try to capture the state. However this is probably the least likely consequence of the current situation. Staging a state capture would need either a strong penetrance within the state structure or a massive military base. Frankly how long have the Maoists been in power and how much of the bureaucracy could they have actually possessed as of now? Not much, eh? On the military side too the Maoists’ capability has been exposed since they came back to surface politics and we all know the military base they have would not allow them to capture the state right now even if they wished to.

Then there is the issue of international opposition against any attempt by any communist power in the world today to come to power, forget about communist parties capturing the state illegally. In a strategically sensitive country like Nepal which is and will always be an important ground for players interested in world dominance, given Nepal lies between two potential future superpowers India and China, countries with capitalist interests will not fail to act if the Maoists tried to capture the state illegally. Let us not forget that the US still labels the Maoists as a terrorist organisation. Given that Maoists have done no harm whatsoever to the US and given that the Maoists have actually been voted by the people, the failure of the US to remove the terrorist tag from the Maoists is a clear sign of their enmity towards the Maoists (and this is for the sole reason that the Maoists are communists). Not that the  US was overly sympathetic towards us poor Nepalese folks- we all do have a feel for how they treat us, don’t we, especially those lucky ones of us who have experienced the treat of a visa interview at their embassy.

Therefore there is no real reason to believe that the Maoists would possibly try to capture the state power by force. If they did dare this folly that would be them playing with their future existence and we, the freedom-loving people would have a new enemy in them- sooner or later they would fall.

 

Challenges next

Given that the UML has quit the government, it will be very very difficult for the Maoists to stay on power and a UML-Congress coalition with with/without support from other political parties might be on the cards. A Congress-UML government would possibly involve the Oli camp of the UML given that the UML would possibly run a risk of a split if power-hungries in the Oli camp do not get a share in the next UML-involving government. A Congress-UML government cannot be expected do any better than the current government in terms of solving the ethnicity and regionalism-driven (often) armed struggles. Rather the country might face a more serious problem. The Maoists will obviously find it very difficult to swallow it that they were removed from power for a reason that they (as many other Nepali people) find wrong. This might easily be understood by the Maoists as another reason why some problems can only be approached except through an armed struggle and they might be tempted back to guerilla warfare. Hopefully they realize the wish of the Nepalese people and wait to prove themselves in the next elections.

One of the serious problems of the post-election political scene has been the absolute unacceptance of the Maoists and their election victory by the Oli camp of the UML as well as the Congress. This might be a dangerous thing if the next government is to be a Congress-UML government. At this point as a commonplace citizen let us hope the Congress and the OliUML recognize the Maoists as a political entity in the current multiparty parliamentary system and respect them for their election achievements. Acceptance by contemporary parliamentary parties is a key to helping the Maoists (which is a popular political force, whether one likes it or not) learn parliamentary life after such a long underground phase. 

So let us hope that the next government, whoever forms it does not spit fire after fire upon the Maoists and that it recognizes the Maoist PLA and that it takes the PLA integration/rehabilitation issue seriously. In the absence of such seriousness the constitution drafting process will come under real risk and the status quo of anarchy-style, criminal and corrupt system might stay for longer in the country.

 

One more player

Except for our leaders, an ambitious political player from the neighbouring country is gaining invaluable practise on our political playground. He is the honorable Indian Ambassador Shri Rakesh Sood. His personal motifs are clear- he should be having big ambitions back home and a term in Nepal where he can manipulate and use the politics here for interests of his bosses should secure him a ludicrous future. However he should soon realize that his intervention is clearly crossing diplomatic norms.

To the leaders of our country we should like to ask some questions in connection to Sood. Mr. Koirala, Mr. Prachanda, Mr. Khanal, who is this Sood to you? Why do you allow this agent of an administration that plays “Big Brother” to us to interfere in our internal affairs? Are you his puppets? - Dear Leaders, take off your daura-suruwal or suit and show us your true colours.

Are you guys scared of this Sood that he might cause trouble to us, the Nepali people? If so, that is your illusion Mr. Koirala, Mr. Khanal, Mr. Dahal. We have been suffering enough and it can get not much worse, believe us. Lead us in the fight against invasive, interfering diplomacy. Unite for once for us, Mr. Leaders and show us that you are worth the brave Nepali population. How about finding political consensus in filing a complaint against the intrusion of such agents? Let’s ask to be left alone with our internal conflicts and problems and lets solve them ourselves- we need to learn, dear leaders. Anyway why should we believe that an administration under which  fellow poor humans in Bihar or in the slums of Mumbai (or elsewhere, actually everywhere) are suffering can give us the right advice to help our nation into prosperity? A serious word of caution to Sood with national consensus would help other ambitious players from countries remember that we are a souvereign people.

 

A potential granddesign and a silent player?

The difference in opinion among the major political parties in the country regarding the fate of Katawal are not unexpected if we consider that in the short history of multiparty democracy the hunger of power has always dominated political opinions. The immense interest that the South Bloc has exhibited in the Army chief issue is however very intriguing and one cannot help thinking of a possible grand design.

It is easy to see the interest of India in remove the Maoists from the government. If the Maoists come up with popular programs and succeed that would be against Indian political as well as economic interests. First a communist government in Nepal would be the least manipulatable for them. Then it would pose the risk of the re-emergence of communist movements in India. A not very India-friendly Nepalese soil could serve fertile ground for anti-Indian interests of the Pakistanis, Chinese etc. And finally in the greater international community a communist state in the subcontinent would be a matter of shame for Indian democracy.

There might be further gaming going on though. At the expense of not sounding paranoid let us try to explore this. Religious fanaticism and religious politics is very present in India. For the Hindu scene in India (both the radical and the non-radical part), it was a big blow that Nepal was no longer a Hindu state. There are undoubtedly several interest groups in India, including politically mighty ones who would like to see the revival of Nepal as a Hindu state. Now His ex-Majesty Gyanendra has recently been often reported to have been in India holding “personal and social” meetings with central level politicians. If India helped for the revival of Hindu monarchy in Nepal, His Majesty and his sons and grandsons would be eternally grateful towards India and secret pacts might even be signed that will secure India eternal support by the Nepalese government and also unlimited access to use the Nepalese soil for whatever activities. A revival of monarchy in the form of a baby king has actually been claimed to have been agreed in part by Mr. Koirala, if he got to be the prime minister again. It has become increasingly propagandaed in the last months that removing the monarchy was an idea of the Maoists and that the failure of the Maoists in reinstating law and order in the country is a sign that they are a useless bunch. The activities of the Maoists have not helped thereby not only making people apathetic towards the removal of the popularly elected Maoists from power but also making many of them actually not care if the king would be revived. The people living in the peripheral rural Nepal have hardly felt any betterment in their life situation and would not care about a king anyway. As such negative sentiments against the king has been systematically reduced and many interest groups are working actively towards reviving the monarchy such that even the rather neutral sounding ones of yesterday can be heard saying “what difference is this to the king’s rule? This is even worse. At least there was more order in the country, even without popular law”. Would His ex-Majesty come out from his silence and clarify his position please?

If the monarchy were to be revived with whatever pretexts that would be the real step backwards from here on and not only the Maoists but also the younger generations of the other major political parties of the country would feel sad for we all have learnt how much blood, sweat and suffering it takes to remove a stubborn monarch, compared to removing an elected  government.

 

A word to us all

Grand designs might be going on and it might be the coordination of such a task that is keeping Sood moving so much between Nepali political centres and his bosses. It is extremely important for all major political parties to realize that it was unfortunate for them to fall apart on the Army chief issue and to act as quickly as possible to form the next government and proceed towards addressing the major issues of the transition period- namely keeping the transition period short, establishing law and order, solving the issue of army integration, writing a strong people-oriented constitution and holding the next election in time to start afresh towards prosperity for the brave and enduring people of the country. Hopefully Pashupatinath helps us all in these testing times.

raktim.nepali@gmail.com