Kathmandu: The King is aware or not, the fact is that he is under pressure from all possible political sectors including the students and the Maoists.
Whether the King is briefed properly by his political aides or not on the changing political contexts each day in the country, the fact remains that the monarch is being projected by the political “actors” as undemocratic whose words and deeds differ.
King Gyanendra’s interview with the Time magazine though speaks of the prevailing people’s mind, but the fact is that the political parties have begun interpreting his statements in the interview as a monarch who was not satisfied with the role provided to him by the 1990 constitution and that the monarch wishes to assert some more role so that he too could remain prominent in determining the political course of the nation.
The idea of the King in itself is not that bad contrary to what has been given to understand by the political parties currently in agitation against regression but then yet the manner the King has pushed his ideas and ventilated his inner feelings for the population within and without does hint that King Gyanendra would not settle for less until and unless the agitating “monopolists of democratic system” yielded and listened to his voices and concerns.
This means that neither the King nor the political parties will yield under their prevailing stances.
Bad omen indeed for the nation.
The fact is that instead of easing the situation, which is what had been expected, King Gyanendra’s interview has compounded the Nepali politics even further from where it was.
The fact is also that neither the King appears to be in a mood to retract from his “bold assertions”, nor the agitating political parties wish to hush-hush the matter for good. The result is that a sort of confrontation of a bigger dimension appears to have suddenly gripped the country, whose consequences could be unfathomable, politically speaking.
Neutral observers, however, say that whatever the King has opined in his interview were the things what “we” the people had been crying about for all along these thirteen years and hence what is the harm when the King reiterated the same?
Others maintain that for good or bad, the corrupt and inefficient leaders of today’s political scene would be entrusted to run the system and not the King.
The fact is that the King has clearly told in his interview that he was the one who must speak now in favor of the (implied) rejected and neglected people.
The fact is also that, analysts say, the King too missed the “opportunity” for it was him who dictated the State of affairs for all along these eighteen months and could have done a lot if he so desired.
“The King too has miserably failed. The people had expected that beginning October 4, he could have brought about far-reaching changes in favor of the people for whom he now is encouraged to speak”, said one political analyst on condition of anonymity.
On a real plane, Koirala is, as a matter of fact, dead against the King’s interview and has dubbed it by saying that the King is expressing his opinions as if he were an eighteen century King; Madhav Nepal of the UML though is mild in his criticism against the King but yet his hands are tied and hence could not be trusted politically; Amik Sherchan is the one who summarily rejected the royal audience which speaks so many things without explaining the reasons; the NMKP leader, Narayan Man Bijukchee is on record to have said of the King that “ultimately it is the monarch to loose”; one faction of the splinter Sadbhavana is unhappy with the monarch simply because the latter did not invite its leaders for a royal audience and hence has felt humiliated; add to this, the students of all hue and cry, deliberate or otherwise, have been chanting slogans against the King and that too openly and on a regular basis and etc.
Summing up it all, what comes to the fore is that it is the King and not his government to loose should the situation take a different turn.
Analysts maintain that when the King claims that he is the protector of the constitution then why he is not concerned to bring it back to the rails as is being alleged by his detractors?
Certainly, the King being the guardian of the State and a protector of the constitution has a duty as well to correct the anomalies if it is well within his political limits as stipulated in the constitution.
The fact is that the interview of the King appears to have widened the gap in between him and the agitating political parties. And it is not for nothing that Maoist leader Dr. Babu Ram Bhattarai very cleverly and tactfully interprets that it was this particular interview of the King that has mercifully brought the Maoists closer to the now agitating parties.
The Maoist leader also has claimed that slowly but steadily, the nation was taking a bi-polar shape instead of the existing triangular force represented by the King, the parliamentary parties and the Maoists themselves. This means that the Maoists think that only two pole existed as of the moment: the Maoists and the agitating political parties.
A section of high placed sources claim that the King next Sunday might provide some hints to the national population on the future course the nation’s politics would take from his Nepalgunj speech.
The King, to recall, is being felicitated by the population of Nepalganj coming Sunday. As usual, the Maoists have threatened to disrupt the felicitations program.
Reports have it that the unified command is already kept on an high alert in order to avoid any disturbances at time of the felicitation ceremony.
All in all, country in in a greater crisis since ever. Analysts hope that political actors including the monarch understood the dimension of the problem and acted in a manner that is in the larger interest of the nation and her people.