Kathmandu: In the beginning, the Nepali Congress President Girija Prasad Koirala was the lone crusader favoring the restoration of the now dissolved parliament.

Koirala, to recall, still continues to reiterate that all the existing ailments of the country would vanish in the thin air the moment parliament is restored. In saying so, Koirala believes strongly that the entire constitutional crisis that crept in after the King’s October 4 move taken in 2002 would come to a grinding halt for the restoration of the parliament would bring back to the rails the derailed constitution.

Though critical of King’s moves, Koirala yet assures the King that he can restore the parliament by taking in what he calls a “political decision”.

The King appears not to challenge the apex court’s approval of the dissolution of the parliament.

Nevertheless, Koirala is on the move and hopes that he would win sooner or later.

Koirala’s demand appeared whimsical by some in the beginning. However, suddenly a large section of the intellectuals have also begun toeing the Koirala line favoring the restoration of the parliament. What prompted these intellectuals and some communist leaders in the recent days to go in favor of Koirala’s structured line is mysterious. Nevertheless, stalwarts like Raghu Pant, Bam Dev Gautam and Pradip Nepal, all UML CC members, must not have spoken in favor of the revival of the dead parliament for nothing.

As could be expected, some forces, both within and without, must have influenced the communist leaders to plead in favor of the revival of the parliament. But which force on earth could have whispered in their ears?

Keep on guessing.

Not very surprisingly then a section of the Nepali press men too have begun championing the cause of Koirala and have begun writing in favor of providing a lease of life to the already dead parliament.

How come this sudden change? Is here again some maneuverings? But from where?

Be that as it may, rumors are that some diplomatic mission in Kathmandu have taken the charge campaigning in favor of the revival of the parliament.

One editor even admitted in front of this paper that a fortnight ago he was told to off-load his front page news with what the diplomat was about to send for the editor’s paper.

The editor later whispered that what was printed in his paper the next day had some thing to favor the restoration of the parliament.

Is it a mere coincidence or some deliberate maneuverings initiated of late by certain missions that suddenly Nepali leaders and a section of the media have begun seeing the need for the revival of the parliament?

Should this mean that certain forces unknown to the analysts were strengthening Koirala’s hands? If it is so then Koirala has reasons to be happy.

Koirala no more remains a lone crusader indeed.