Almost all signs indicate a continuing confrontation between the two legitimate constitutional forces. The initial hopes raised by the gradual release of political leaders is now giving way to despair. The arrest of former prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba at midnight and of four former ministers — two of the Nepali Congress and two of the CPN-UML— and one current Upper House member during the day, all on Wednesday, is one more sign of this. Though Deuba, like Prakash Man Singh, once in his cabinet, has been arrested for his refusal to respect the Royal Commission on Corruption Control’s order to appear before it to answer corruption-related questions, the others do not face even such summons. One of them, Raghuji Pant, however, was released immediately. This action has drawn condemnation from the major political parties and others, including Nepal’s southern neighbour. Major Western donor countries are also unlikely to view the arrest with favour.

The vandalising of the CPN-UML’s head office, despite the home ministry’s explanatory denial, raises doubts about the government’s commitment to multiparty democracy, which cannot be imagined without the free functioning of the political parties. As Britain’s special envoy to Nepal Sir Jeffery James said in Kathmandu on Wednesday, “restoration of democracy and civil liberties is obviously the central precondition for moving on to a successful peace process.” Meanwhile, New Delhi has clarified, following press reports that it has agreed to resume arms supplies to Nepal very soon, by stating that all developments in Nepal would be considered in the ‘proper perspective’ before resuming arms supplies. Even human rights activists, former judges, and academicians continue to face restrictions on travel and movement.

These developments suggest a hardening approach and is not therefore conducive to reconciliation with the political parties. Questions are being raised that if the February 1 step is directed against the Maoists, why are the political parties having to bear the brunt of it? The special British envoy’s suggestion for finding a ‘democratic middle ground’ in order to resolve the conflict is worth pondering. He firmly said that there can be no military solution to the Maoist problem, and added that the international community could do little if the domestic political forces did not show flexibility. But the political forces unfortunately define national interests to suit their narrow purposes. National interests should be defined not in terms of individual or group interests but the definition should be a clear-cut consensual one. If the legitimate constitutional forces cannot minimise their confrontation, they will be big losers, too.