Unlike earlier years, this New Year came in a very fluid political situation and the people heard and read King Gyanendra’s New Year message with mixed feelings. To many, the speech contained nothing new except the continuation of his old road map, which he has been pursuing since he directly took over the responsibility of running the administration and he wants to pursue it vigorously. He has not budged from his known position except making a formal call to the political parties for a dialogue to activate the multiparty democracy on the basis of the 1990 Constitution, which for some is in a state of coma, while for others it is already dead.

The agitating seven-party alliance, in return, not only turned down the King’s call but also came out with a statement saying ‘they want to establish loktantra through people’s movement not through negotiations with the King’. G P Koirala has gone further and stated that ‘he sees a clear possibility of unity between democratic and republican forces in the country.’ Thus both these political actors are at loggerheads.

It may be recalled that over the last few days the country has witnessed demonstrations, both peaceful and bloody, in almost every part. These protests have been continuing on the call of the seven agitating parties with the support of the Maoists to force the King to relinquish absolute power and restore democracy. The movement is getting fiercer day by day. Professionals are joining in. It is becoming clearer that Nepal was never in a more difficult situation than now, not even during the 1990 movement. But the establishment seems to be bent on crushing the demonstrations through the use of force and imposition of curfew, which was openly challenged by the people.

On New Year’ eve, some had expected that the King would extend the olive branch to his opponents with a view to solving the growing seriousness of the problem and save the country from collapsing. In other words, it was expected by some that the King, like his slain eldest brother King Birendra during the1990, would read the writing on the wall and save the country from the current political conflict. Others, who had been observing the situation keenly and reading the mindset of the King since he imposed direct rule, had not expected any magic in his message. Therefore, for them the King’s call was nothing but “too little to be considered seriously.”

It is becoming clear that it is the King who is the weakest and has isolated himself not only from the people but also from the international community. The closure of its consular section and the American library by the US Embassy in addition to the travel advisories by many friendly countries warning against visiting Nepal are some examples. Within the country, he is waging a war on all fronts — against the parties (who have been able to get the support of almost all professionals), the bodies representing them and against the Maoists, who are in control of the rural and semi-urban areas.

In such a context, it seems an impossible task for the King to come out of the present situation. Thus the challenge before him is how to make a ‘U-turn.’ The other challenges are: to contain the increasing protests against him and the institution of monarchy, to control the political unrest and the insurgency, to maintain and sustain the morale of the security personnel, to ensure regular supply of essentials to the people and to start a dialogue with the parties and deal with the Maoists.

So far, the parties with the support of the Maoists have been able to bring the people to the streets against the King. Different slogans, such as restoration of democracy or putting the 1990 Constitution back on track, establishment of a loktantrik system and even the establishment of a republican state, have been heard during the course of the demonstrations.

As a result, according to some observers, the leaders of the agitating parties have to clarify whether they are thinking of a loktantrik system with or without monarchy. If they are thinking of a system without monarchy, then how are they different from the Maoists? In addition, how are they going to solve the Maoist problem once they are in power? In other words, what is the ultimate destination and the manner through which they would make the safe landing of the present agitation has to be made clear. Once they present a clear picture before the people, a lot more people, especially from Kathmandu, will come out openly to support the movement.

The net effect of the above challenge is that the country will bleed more. The people will have to wait for some more time to be relieved from the ongoing agitation — one led by the political parties with the support of the people and the other being the armed and bloody movement led by the Maoists. But on the whole, the country’s future is uncertain and is headed towards a total collapse, which might cause mass killings and possibly an ethnic clash as well.

Dr Dhungel is executive director, IIDS