Dr. Tulsi Giri’s recent statement in Biratnagar has triggered off a political storm and a contempt of court case against him. Dr. Giri, a Panchayat-day hardliner, had said that the present Constitution is a major obstacle to the King’s objectives as laid down in the February 1 royal proclamation. On Wednesday, Surya Bahadur Thapa, former prime minister and chairman of the newly formed Rastriya Janashakti Party, warned that if the King did not disown Dr. Giri’s remarks, it would mark the beginning of an ‘ominous phase’. Thapa alleged that the present government of ‘ultra-rightists,’ is bent on ending both democracy and monarchy. Some legal experts have expressed the view that Dr. Giri has spoken the King’s mind. The Nepal Bar Association filed the contempt case because Dr. Giri accused judges of deciding cases under the influence of the political parties.

The apex court will take care of the contempt case. But the general doubts about the government’s intentions have been further strengthened by Dr. Giri’s remarks. The government’s other moves, for example, those aimed at curbing press and democratic freedoms, and its unfriendly attitude to the established political parties are at the root of widespread suspicion of its bona fides. The way the government is behaving—despite its lameduck status—is as if it had absolute constitutional authority to do almost anything presents a worrisome prospect to many. For these reasons, too, an appropriate explanation about Dr. Giri’s remarks from the highest level would be in order, or else silence is bound to be widely construed as consent.

If even people like Thapa, a known rightist himself, view Dr. Giri’s remarks in such a light, it will not be a surprise if staunch pro-democracy supporters are convinced that the reason the government has not formally rubbished the Constitution so far is its fear of international backlash. But, speculation in this direction has intensified this week. Dr. Giri does not hold a post in the cabinet recognised by the Constitution, though he draws his salary and perks from the taxpayer’s money. He is an appointee accountable to his appointer. Therefore, any argument that his remarks do not necessarily represent the government’s view does not carry conviction.