Kathmandu: Of all the political leaders in the country, the UML leader is talking sense, say analysts.

It is not only because he is well abreast with the country’s problems but apparently also possesses certain infallible remedies for the country’s ailments.

The fact is that he is bit different than Koirala for the latter is not only arrogant but has practically developed a sort of personal enmity with the monarch and in the process talks any thing under the sun against the king. However, Madhav Nepal is different than Koirala in the sense that this particular leader undoubtedly wishes the King to yield but with a difference. While Koirala wishes by implication the King to apologise for his October moves and reinstate the parliament as per his demands, Madhav Nepal prefers the King to yield to their demands allowing room to the King to correct his moves.

The message in both the stances are same indeed but there is difference in style for the presentation of the agenda to the King.

Madhav Nepal the other day exhibited a statesmanship like political maturity when he said that the three forces that is the King, the political parties and the Maoists must now exhibit their flexibility in order to arrest the deteriorating situation of the country. In saying so Madhav Nepal was definitely hinting or speculating that the Maoists issue must get first preference and that to satisfy the Maoists demands, the three forces maintaining the power balance had to contribute their shares in easing the tense situation of the country.

Here lies Mr. Nepal’s political acumen.

The fact is that nation’s analyst conclude if the nation were to be saved from going to the brink of yet another civil war, it would be advisable to all to exhibit flexibility in their respective stands in the larger interest of the nation.

Moreover, Madhav Nepal is in contact with Dr. Babu Ram Bhattarai over telephone. The last call from Bhattarai to Mr. Nepal was on Sunday wherein the latter appears to have urged the former not to damage the prospects of the talks. However, Dr. Bhattarai is learnt to have sought the support of Mr. Nepal in pressing the Thapa government to yield to their conditions and Mr. Nepal apparently told Bhattarai that he would do so. Madhav and his colleagues in the agitation now conclude that Thapa government was now already a spent force and that the government must be sacked and a new all party government be formed that would not only initiate talks with the Maoists but will also conduct the elections.

Koirala lacks political vision or else he could have assured the Maoists that they too would benefit politically from the talks. He could have suggested the Maoists to attend the talks at any cost. He did not do so presumably with a hope that a change in government might enhance his own prospects in the next government.

Given the country’s fluid situation, what could be best said that if Madhav Nepal is allowed to handle the country’s affairs in an all-party government, he could perhaps bring about a change in the Maoists thinking as well who time permitting might join the nation’s mainstream politics. Madhav Nepal being himself a communist, it would be easier for him to convince the Maoists. Koirala, a declared communist hater can’t be the best choice at this stage.

But the million dollar question is: Will Thapa resign? Will the King accept Madhav as next Prime Minister? What about the Maoists and the reactions of the donor community? What if Madhav is the country’s prime minister in an all party government with Maoists participation? Sounds interesting indeed.