Gyanendra: the end? Posted online: Saturday, April 22, 2006 at 0000 hrs The king did not read the writing on the wall. Now the wall has closed in on him Jonathan swift had advice for monarchs like King Gyanendra: “Kings are commonly said to have long hands; I wish they had as long ears.” Ever since February 2005, when he sacked the Sher Bahadur Deuba government for the second time in two years, assumed absolute power, and suspended human rights, there have been vociferous protests on the streets. But the king shut his ears to them. Now, with every street in every city and town in Nepal swamped by protestors, King Gyanendra has finally had to listen. But the statement that he read out on Friday evening betrays a lack of understanding of the import of the present developments. Whether he wishes to acknowledge it or not, this may well be the end of the road for him. In his desperate attempt at over-reach, he may have even lost the perch that he and his descendants could have inhabited for some years yet: that of a constitutional monarch, as envisaged in the 1990 constitution. Today Gyanendra’s words of appeasement fail to strike a chord. The demand in Nepal right now is for the immediate reconstitution of a constituent assembly. Gyanendra, on the other hand, wants the seven-party alliance to name a new prime minister. He would like the present arrangement to continue until a new government is formed. It is extremely unlikely that his gameplan will meet with approval — either from the seven-party political opposition, or the people on the streets. For India the latest developments may well mean the need to jettison its careful diplomatic formulation for Nepal: “constitutional monarchy with multi-party democracy”. If this country wants to play a meaningful role in Nepal’s future it will have to come out unequivocally on the side of a meaningful multi-party democracy. The concern over the Maoists is a genuine one. But the present situation also throws up an opportunity to neutralise their violent role in Nepal’s politics by bringing them into the national mainstream. Nepal — one of the poorest nations in the world — has suffered enough. The Spring Awakening of 1990 did not ultimately live up to its name. The promise of democracy it had held evaporated too quickly. Nepal and its people deserve to succeed this time. http://www.indianexpress.com/story/2907.html