Maoist chairman Prachanda has drawn sharp criticism from certain sections of the legislature and politicians for calling for forging “an alliance between the Maoists, the parliamentary parties and ‘nationalist’ forces” to protect the country’s national interests. Lawmakers belonging to the Nepali Congress, the CPN-UML and the People’s Front Nepal (PFN) on Wednesday sought a clarification from Prachanda. They warned in the parliament that such overtures could affect the peace process by promoting a new political polarisation in the country. Indeed, at a time when the palace is discredited, and the supporters of the monarchy with it, and when the political parties are moving to formalise Nepal’s entry into a republican era, the concerns expressed by MPs and other politicians are not unnatural at all.

This puts the onus on Prachanda to convince others that his statements need not alarm anybody. Prachanda should elaborate on the kind of alliance he favours. That would help other political parties to decide whether to join such an alliance or how to view the Maoists. Prachanda was speaking of the alliance probably to defend the country’s sovereignty, which the Maoists see to be in danger. Until the Moaists provide a clear picture of Prachanda’s utterances, others may doubt whether the CPN-Maoist has made a U-turn in its republican position. But, so far, there is no basis for coming to such a conclusion. Those who see a lurking danger in Prachanda’s statements should also judge whether Prachanda is speaking of such an alliance within a monarchical political set-up or under a republican one. If it is the latter, the charge of Maoist ‘collusion with the palace’ becomes weak.

Indeed, those people who supported the monarchy all these years include various types — those who sincerely saw it as a symbol of national unity and who believed that it was only the monarchy that could defend the country’s independence and sovereignty. They had a right to their belief. But when they thought that democracy and people’s rights stood in the way of country’s vital interests, they went wrong. But there are also some who saw harm in the active role of the monarchy and preferred a limited role for it in a democracy. But many others joined forces with the monarchy for selfish ends. Anyway, the debate over what role the monarchy should have appears to be closed now, as all the major political parties have decided to go republican and public opinion also seems to support them. All the SPA constituents should be trusted as to their official position on the future of the monarchy. Therefore, the question should be rather what role the former monarchists might play in a republican set-up. The people do not bother much about party-political calculations. But what the people would appreciate much would be for the political parties to make genuine efforts to evolve a common approach — irrespective of their ideologies or policies towards internal issues — to matters of vital national interests like sovereignty, independence, foreign and security policies, water resources utilisation, etc. Where Prachanda’s statements fit remains to be seen.