Kathmandu: President Koirala has plenty of reasons to be happy.

Firstly, he is pleased to see Deuba miserably failing to for a cabinet on his own. Secondly, for Koirala, his political rival Deuba’s inability in having been able to bring in the UML support for his cabinet must have consoled his heart. Thirdly, it is no less a matter of pride for Koirala that the agitation he is leading is all kicking and alive although the UML has backed out from that.

An overly pleased President Koirala the other day declared from his home town that his party is now against the idea of a constituent assembly.

Koirala’s volte face from his earlier stand which out and out favored the constituent assembly has surprised many a brains in Kathmandu’s political circuit.

To recall, it was NC President Koirala who in effect brought this slogan in vogue presumably to send threatening signals to the monarch hinting him that should the monarch did not corrected his past constitutional blunders, the NC would not mind in changing its old political stance of adhereing to the prevalence of constitutional monarchy.

As a matter of fact, it was Koirala who told his student to go on the rampage who in turn shook Kathmandu’s roads and walls with the slogans of republicanism.

For Koirala now those who advocate the theory of a constituent assembly must have been guided by national and international players and hence his party must reject the theory, a theory first pronounced by Koirala himself.

What he does, he does not speak. What he speaks, he does not do. This is Koirala’s special characteristics.

Koirala had to reject the idea of the constituent assembly because those were being advocated by others, his competitors. The fact is that he can’t tolerate competing ideas and thus he is now all against the idea pushed by his detractors.

“When the two guns are in operation, what is the guarantee that the elections to the constituent assembly will come in favor of the people?”, is what Koirala is saying these days.

Analysts extract meaning from Koirala’s utterances that he made in Biratnagar.

Analysts maintain that when Koirala says so, he is afraid of the possible chances that the results of the constituent assembly might enhance the indispensability of the Nepali monarchy thus making the monarchy much more effective than what it is today.

However, Koirala opines that he could think on those lines if the Maoists laid down their arms prior to the elections to the constituent assembly.

In sum, Koirala is in favor of constituent assembly and he is concurrently not.

Question could well be asked as to why Koirala is changing his stances? Who is influencing his political decisions?