Kathmandu: Much is being discussed as to what would happen to the political image of the political parties who appear to threaten the King with the bogey of the possible alliance with the Maoists for their ongoing agitation.

Yet another question arises in this connection as to whether the idea of having an alliance with the Maoists commands the appreciation of the cadres of the political parties engaged in the opposition alliance or is it simply a tool devised by the apex leaders on their own.

Two things are clear: if the leaders’ themselves have found this scheme appropriate to pose a threat to the King to pressure the latter to yield then that speaks volumes of their undemocratic pattern prevailing all pervasive in the party. If the leaders’ claim that they enjoy the appreciation of their rank and file then one wonders as to how the grassroots cadres could have taken such a decision of asking for the support of the ones who have been killing their friends in the villages and the districts.

The fact is that even the apex leaders of a few influential parties have already expressed their disagreement with their top-hats’ decision to go in for support of the Maoists.

For example, K.P.Woli, an UML leader supposed to be a declared rival of Madhav Nepal, the other day opined that UML’s going in for Maoists support in the agitation would mean greater destuction in the country which his party neither could afford nor was it desirable. He however, made it abundantly clear that unless the Maoists abandoned acts of violence, the UML will not and should not go in for such what he called “misadventure”.

Men from the congress and the congress-democratic too preferred to steer the agitation on their own strength for they felt that it would be a suicidal step to invite “evan the terrible” to add to their agitation.

This implies that sensible and responsible politicos yet await Royal signal for a sort of reconciliation through which they still think that a way out to the current crisis could be achieved.

However, UML’s Madhav Nepal is of a different view. He of late has begun blowing hot against the King without knowing that his own feet in the party scheme of things have begun shaking.

The third question that automatically arises in one’s mind is that whether Madhav Nepal is expressing his deep anger towards the institution of the monarchy on his own or on some one’s, groups, or even nation’s prompting? He is a man long known for his presumed speaking the voice of alien friends who have apparently obliged him on some counts.

But then yet the language Madhav is speaking these days against the King is worth pondering over. He says not that democracy and monarchy can’t go together in this country. What does it mean in essence? Is he speaking the voice of the Maoists who would want to replace the monarchy with a republican state in this Himalayan Kingdom? Unfortunately his fiery speech against the Nepali monarchy indicate that he is having a sort of pleasant and excellent relations with Nepali insurgents and by the same token he would want to signal the King to yield or face the consequences. The King perhaps is listening to his blunt remarks carefully.

Question also crops up as to how come the other wise a pragmatic Madhav Nepal should go berserk?

Is it that he now fully acknowledges the fact that his chair was shaking well within his own party with so many rivals for competition, he should now talk sense and nonsense in order to raise his sinking image in the party’s rank and file? Blunt remarks and fiery speeches have become the hall marks of the UML, to say the least. To recall, Madan Bhandari, the UML leader whose death is yet a mystery, too used to challenge the then King Birendra by suggesting the King to come to the streets and fight elections. Later when he met King Birendra got instantly the point that THE king for long time to come will remain a force in the country’s politics. Later he had soft corner for the late King.

Is it the same politics carried forward by his disciple Madhav to threaten the King? He is mistaken then.

Reconciliation with the King is what his friends Woli and many others were advocating for a solution to the current imbroglio, then why Madhav is playing his own tune and at whose tempting and influence? It is time that his own party members should take to task Madhav for his erratic utterances.

The fact is that even diehard advocators of republicanism would wish the continuation of the institution of the monarchy in Nepal for a variety of political and geo-political factors which, analysts presume, Madhav understands better if he is not cheating his own political conscience.

The UML leader, analysts say, must now understand the ground realities and speak a matured language that befits to his current political stature.