Six weeks after the CA met with a dead-end, he outlined his claim in an interview to a private TV channel. And going by media reports from Kathmandu, Gyanendra rests his claim on what he says was a private agreement with the leaders of political parties on April 24, 2006 — the final day of the People’s Movement. On that night, after 19 days of street protests, the king conceded that sovereignty lay with the people, not the crown, and accepted the roadmap of the political parties to bring about peace and democracy.
Now Gyanendra says “At that time, there were many written agreements shared with the then seven-Party Alliance (fighting for democracy). Each word was negotiated. It was clear. What was needed was peace and if parties were willing to take that burden, I did not have any difficulty.”
The other points the King had made in the interview are interesting per se. One he says that abolition of the monarchy was not a part of the agreement. Two the dialogue revolved round reinstatement of Parliament, appointment of the PM from among the parties, and revival of constitutional monarchy and multiparty democracy. Three the discussions were primarily with the seven mainstream parties and the arrival of the Maoists as the new mainstream player had changed the rules of the game.
The interview doesn’t signal the arrival of the King as a key player but it does highlight the dangers of frittering away whatever gains have been made over the past four years. There is however no readymade answer to the million dollar question whether the King would find himself on the saddle. On his part, he may like to by cashing in on the residual sentiment monarchy still evokes in the landlocked Himalayan country. Much would depend on how the Maoists respond to the emerging situation and how the major players on the political scene manage to keep aside their king-size egos for the good the country. Undoubtedly, Nepal is at cross-roads with people exasperated at the failure of the political leaders to go beyond their rhetoric.
Criticising the King or dubbing his remarks in the TV interview as absurd leads the leaders anywhere. Sadly, this is what the first reaction was. Prime Minister Bhattarai said, “The former king does not seem to have learnt any lessons. He will lose whatever facility he is getting.” On his part, Nepali Congress general secretary Krishna Prasad Sitaula, who was a key negotiator during the final days of the People’s Movement, termed the King’s claims of an agreement as a lie. “His (King’s) remarks are outrageous and objectionable and I challenge him to provide proof of any deal. He is dreaming.”. For this turn to Nepal’s quest for democracy, the blame squarely rests on the Maoists, who were the single largest party in the dissolved CA and who also headed the first and
Both the Maoists and the NC must quickly move beyond polemics. Politics is an art of the possible. It demands much give and take. The Maoists must learn the lesson quickly even as they out their house in order.
