Nepal faces king-size questions

India, whose involvement was as inevitable as it was active, should be relieved at the Nepal king finding favour with democracy again.

India, whose involvement was as inevitable as it was active, should be relieved at the Nepal king finding favour with democracy again. Gyanendra8217;s announcement is in line with the Indian prescription to tide over the current crisis. For now, the government can claim its diplomacy worked, that questions over the choice of its special envoy and the subtext of his message need not have been asked so sharply.

But the real questions, in one sense, will begin only now. The biggest query will about the nature and result of negotiations between the interim government and Maoists. Elections will follow such a negotiation. And the hopes for an agreement flow from the existing understanding between the seven-party alliance and Maoists.

The king seems to be arguing that all this can be done without any reference to a constituent assembly. His speech doesn8217;t talk about this. He clearly referred to the 1990 constitution while making his announcement on transferring power. The indications are clear that he isn8217;t in favour of such a step. And there lies a big problem.

Forming a constituent assembly that will draft a new constitution is a key element of the political and popular agitation against the monarchy. When the political parties and Maoists held their talks, when prospects of the armed rebels accepting some sort of a constitutional arrangement became somewhat real for the first time, everything was predicated on Nepal8217;s monarchy losing a lot of its sheen.

The seven-party alliance and Maoists agreed that the way forward for Nepal was to have a ceremonial monarch under a new constitution. The Scandinavian model was frequently referred to. But if the seven-party alliance bows to the king8217;s disinclination to consider redefining the monarchy, Maoists are unlikely to be happy. If the rebels8217; mood sours, prospects of a successful peace negotiation recede. If Nepal doesn8217;t get peace on the ground, the king8217;s gesture on Friday may turn out to be irrelevant for solving the national crisis. The question for India therefore is when and/or whether the king can be persuaded to see a smaller role for himself.

All this is of course assuming the seven-party alliance can come to an agreement over who among the several political heavyweights in it should be the leader in immediate and near future negotiations and elections. A problem that is familiar in third front-style Indian politics. But the 8220;solutions8221; found in India are unlikely to help Nepalese politicians. As things stand now, not one of the grandees seems prepared to think any less of himself.

Beyond the immediate fallout and manoeuvres, the larger doubt is whether the king has acted too late. There8217;s a sense in New Delhi that while Gyanendra may have done some things right for now, the momentum of the popular movement may be too much already to be 8220;guided8221; by palace and even political strategy.

Story continues below this ad

The movement may have acquired a dynamic of its own. It may be past the point of appreciating the monarchy8217;s piece by piece strategy of giving up power. Nepal8217;s citizens, who have marched, defied curfew, faced riot police and the army and created a situation where the establishment had to react, may be far too impatient 8212; for Kathmandu8217;s casuistry or New Delhi8217;s nuances.

pranab.samantaexpressindia.com