The government is coming under increasing international pressure for the restoration of democracy. Its excesses while trying to suppress the current round of seven-party movement that started with a four-day general strike and ‘non-cooperation’ on April 6 have drawn afresh critical comment from US officials, the 25-member European Union, Canada, and Indian leaders. Sean McCormack, spokesman at the US state department, said that the King Gyanendra’s 14-month-old decision to ‘impose direct rule in Nepal has failed in every regard’. Urging the King to restore democracy immediately and begin a dialogue with Nepal’s constitutional forces as this, in the American view, is the ‘best way to deal with the Maoists’, the US has concluded that the failure to do so has compounded the problem. However, the EU has stressed not only the restoration of democracy but reaching out to all political forces to open talks for peace. While the US consistently excludes the Maoists, the EU appeal takes the rebels into account.

Elaborating, Neena Gill, chair of the European Parliament delegation to South Asia, has warned that if its appeal is ignored, the EU would push the UN to take action against the royal regime. The spreading agitation is unlikely to come to a sudden halt, as in the past, just on the basis of some ‘positive signals’ sent out through foreign diplomats or other emissaries, a cabinet reshuffle or the appointment of a prime minister under ‘Article 127’, or through harsher measures such as the declaration of a state of emergency. The risks of temptation for the seven-party alliance have never been higher. They have had to try and wait for three and a half years to drum up this kind of public response and international moral support.

The US view is, however, out of sync with reality, as it ignores a vital ingredient in any possible political settlement. Moreover, many feel, the old definition of ‘constitutional forces’ is increasingly becoming a misnomer in the light of what has been done to the 1990 Constitution. Therefore, the current European appeal that, in essence, implies tripartite talks is closer to reality. Any talk of the restoration of peace implies automatic inclusion of democracy and human rights, not merely the peace of the graveyard. Another thesis of some of Nepal’s important friends that the Nepalis are capable of resolving the present political problems themselves now seems to be left with fewer takers than hitherto. Undoubtedly, the palace has to take a solid initiative for a widely acceptable political solution. The threshold is getting higher.