Kathmandu: Two schools of thought suddenly erupted in the political circle regarding the statement made by Indian Prime Minister Bajpayee on Nepali affairs.

The first supported the Indian statement stating that any good advice from any quarter should not be taken otherwise. The other school of thought that Bajpayee’s statement amounted to a sort of interference in Nepal’s domestic affairs.

The two schools of thought continue to reverberate in the minds of the Nepali intellectuals.

Equally true is the fact that the talk of Madhav Nepal’s secret trip to Lucknow, India to meet the Moist leaders, remains a hot topic even after fortnight of the said trip. Interpretations galore indeed.

It is not surprising therefore that Madhav Nepal is taking up yet another trip to Bangkok in a day or two for reasons unknown to us all. Could Lucknow be linked to Bangkok?

Koirala’s threatening comments on the monarchy continues and will perhaps continue ad infinitum.

Madhav Nepal has emerged, or at least he poses to be so, as a mediator in between the three contending/opposing forces; the agitationists, the monarchy and the Maoists. Sources inside the UML do agree that the three poles ought to become bipolar to get out of the present mess.

Deuba appears all pleased with certain developments that have taken place in the recent days and it is not for nothing that the Nepali media now see reasons to talk to Deuba.

Smaller parties housed in the agitation see the bigger parties cheating them for power-gains.

The King is still silent and his Loyal Prime Minister Thapa has hinted that he will not resign at least till Islamabad SAARC Summit due early January next year.

Given all these scenario, the nation continues to be in a deadlock, however, with signs now of a change.

The initiative to untangle the stalemate has been taken up by nonelessthan the nation’s Supreme Court.

In a surprising move taken last week, the nation’s apex court apparently has decided to analyze as to whether its own previous decision for the approval of the dissolution of the parliament had brought the prevailing political and constitutional maladies?

The court is all set to review its own previous decision. With this has started speculations in the political circle as to what if the house is restored and what if it backs its own previous decision.

Koirala has reasons to be happy for it is he who has been demanding trhe restoration of the parliament. It is he who strictly believes that once the parliament is restored, the derailed constitution and the system will come to order and begin functioning as usual.

Deuba too apparently thinks that if the parliament is restored, he would be made prime minister for it was he who was made victim of the conspiracy of his political colleagues now housed in the five party alliance against regression.

Madhav Nepal, a consensus candidate then, too appears in a fresh mood for he considers himself still a consensus candidate.

For the laymen, the restoration of the parliament will end the present confusion and allow the system to come back to its rails.

The international community too has taken the court’s new initiatives in good faith hoping that at least the restoration would provide Nepal a way out of the existing imbroglio.

Analysts appear confused over the fresh stance taken by the Supreme Court. They question as to how the court can quash its own previous decision? Will not that mean that the full bench that arrived at a unanimous decision and favored the approval of the dissolution made a faulty decision? Will not the restoration of the parliament by the SC at this juncture prompt men here and there to question the very logic of the approval of the dissolution of the parliament then? Will not it mean that the SC by taking up the case after sixteen months of the parliament is ridiculing its own decision?

Similarly, question could also be asked if the SC considered its own decision to be a faulty one which brought this chaos in the country , why not it took up the matter at an early stage so that damage to politics, country and the constitution could have been minimized?

And what is the guarantee that the restoration would bring everything to order? What is the guarantee that the Maoists would come to the table? Will the restoration facilitate the talks in a more representative manner?

All put together, what could be said is that undoubtedly the restoration of the house would set the ball rolling in a democratic way. However, any quick solution to the existing Nepali issues will not be possible even if the SC restored the parliament.

The possible scenario after the restoration of the parliament would be: marathon race for the Premier post; the squabbling and in all likelihood the initiation of a sort of horse-trading; an all-party government or an all pervasive sort of government with or without Prime Minister Thapa; the differences on how to tackle the Maoists issue and last but not the least, the conduct the elections prior to the solution to the Maoists imbroglio or after an elected government assumes power at the center. Add to this the sudden interest by some quarters on how Nepal should be run in case the house is restored.

But then yet, politics demands dynamism. It is far better to be in a state of dynamism instead of remaining in a static form.

A subjudice case as it is, it would be futile to bring the whole affair into a debate. What is for sure is that the SC decisions would be legal and binding on all.