I thought (THT, September 23, 2004) miracles could take place in Nepali politics and turn the whole scenario around from the grim to a bright future. For example, the Maoists ‘can give us a bolt from the blue by announcing a unilateral ceasefire.’ Just after one year, on September 2, 2005, to be exact, the Maoists did give us a pleasant surprise by declaring a three-month-long unilateral ceasefire. The government was taken aback, the political parties grabbed it as an opportunity to shake hands with the rebels and the international community welcomed it. The effect was indeed positive and effective.

“The political leaders, on their part, can also spring a miracle by a concerted move of siding with the rebels tilting the power balance against the king.” Within a year, there emerged the coalition of the seven leading political parties, thanks to the royal move of February 1, standing far from monarchy and pretty close to the Maoists. This development has virtually given the tri-polar conflict a bi-polar shape with serious consequences to existing power balance. It means miracles do happen in Nepal.

There is yet another miracle, contemplated on the same occasion, more earth-shaking than the above two near-fulfilled dreams. It supposed, “The king comes out of his cocoon and declares abdication of all power he has assumed. Or he makes a strong move to bring the rebels and political leaders together in a roundtable conference.” King Gyanendra has not yet obliged us by doing any one of them. That, however, does not mean that he will never do it. He is equally capable, like other political actors of our country, of springing surprises.

Was the royal declaration of October 4, 2002 not a great bombshell to the country and a greater unexpected blow to ‘incompetent’ Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba? Was the royal takeover of 2005 not a bigger shock to us?

It means King Gyanendra is capable of springing more surprises as he cannot. He has been severely criticised at home and abroad for what he did over the last three years to democracy, individual freedom and human rights. Some political leaders have even challenged him personally to give up the crown, if he loves democracy and multiparty system as per his public commitment, and contest general elections for national leadership that he has assumed by force, constitutional or military notwithstanding.

We should, against this background, not be surprised if he accepts the gauntlet from his political rivals to prove himself a popular leader instead of an autocratic king. He has, of course, an option of abdicating (contemplated as a miracle) and entering a political contest as a commoner. After all, history is playing a bitter-sweet game with him in crowning him and de-crowning him in 1950 and again crowning him after over 50 years. He can, in turn, play a game with history by renouncing the throne in favour of his son and grandson and come down to start a brave but democratic fight in winning the people’s hearts.

Is he not on public record that man should, since he has to die one day, leave something for posterity to remember? A good opportunity lies, in tune with this vision and aspiration, in opening a political party, enrolling mass membership and contesting the democratic elections. He stands, even as a commoner, better chances of popular support in a free and fair election than the existing political leaders given the lingering public disenchantment with them and reluctance to participate in the political agitations. There is every reason, on the King’s part, to be inspired by the public cheers he received during his countrywide visits and close encounters with the people.

The King is fond of falling back on history and deriving inspiration from his ancestry. There is, even on this count, the historic precedent of Rana Bahadur Shah renouncing his throne but continuing to rule. There is the recent example of his own younger brother, Prince Dhirendra, who relinquished his royal title to live as a commoner. In terms of power, King Birendra has gone down in history as a democratic and constitutional king by handing over sovereign power to the people as enshrined in the existing Constitution.

The King will similarly go down in history if he gives up his attachment to the throne and takes a big gamble in politics by proving himself as an elected ruler in the form of a prime minister. After all, he has demonstrated a high degree of human sagacity by living as a prince-turned-king, king-turned-prince and again prince-turned-king. Will it not be a globally tantalising enterprise for him, reminiscent of King Sihanouk of Cambodia, to try to become a popular prime minister instead of continuing in the vulnerable situation of turning into an undemocratic, autocratic and unpopular king? If this miracle takes place, it will definitely change the whole scenario, undoubtedly, for the better.

Shrestha is a freelance journalist