Political speculation has increased as a result of the audiences granted by King Gyanendra on Sunday as the pro-democracy movement continues to gather steam across the country. He met the two vice-chairmen in his cabinet, Dr Tulsi Giri and Kirtinidhi Bista; however, the centre of public interest was his separate meetings with the ambassadors of the United States, India and China, the three countries perceived to have the highest stakes in Nepal of all countries, and to be most important to Nepal. Though the details are yet to be become public, obviously, the meeting can easily be expected to have focused on the deepening political crisis.

More royal consulations took place yesterday — with former prime ministers. However, a new round of audiences should not necessarily be cause for much hope, if the past is any guide. The King and the opposition political leaders have met several times since the royal move of October 4, 2002, purportedly to break the political deadlock, but in vain. Noteworthy is the fact that such audiences have rather tended to take place whenever the movement for democracy starts picking up some momentum, thus throwing cold water over the rising protests. This has eroded the credibility of both the palace and the political parties, the latter becoming more suspicious of the former’s intentions and the general people of the intentions of both. However, this time around, there is increasing involvement of the masses in spite of the parties’ serious weaknesses — because of the public disenchantment with the overall dismal performance of the royal government, the people’s desire for democracy, and not the least, the rebel factor reflected in the 12-point understanding between the Maoists and the political parties.

For now, the process of royal audiences, particularly with the foreign ambassadors, seems to have reduced speculation about the impending imposition of emergency. But what is crucial is finding the answer to the problem based on a national consensus. Any solution, under the circumstances, will have to be of a fundamental nature. Measures such as the formation of another government, or cabinet reshuffle, or offer of prime ministership to the leader of any political party under Article 127 won’t do as this experimentation has outlived its utility and is bound to prove counterproductive for its author. Further delay in taking the bold new initiative will only make the search for a political solution even more elusive. Meanwhile, the ministers engaged in volatile but pointless rhetoric against the pro-democracy camp may want to demonstrate some quiet wisdom in relation to the dangers the nation is faced with. They ought to know that their insensitivity at this juncture may compromise the survivability of the monarchy. The nation stands to lose much more from an intensified nature and content of the conflict.