Former Nepal’s sovereign, Gyanendra Shah, has thrown a prism like stone in the otherwise calm waters of Kathmandu’s political pond thereby inviting criticisms, some in favor and the rest in disregard.
Whatever may have been the inner designs of his Democracy day message made this Falgun 7, 20171, however, what is for sure is that his note, timely that it was, has stirred the entire political parties and the laymen who neither favor nor reject the institution of Nepali monarchy but simply they, read the people and the Kathmandu’s informed citizenry, wish to understand as to what compelled the then King to resurrect the technically dead parliament as per the demand of the then agitating seven political parties?
Whether the then King gave a new lease of life to the parliament then on his own without feeling any sort of pressure from the agitating parties or he did so under excessive weight from the latter remains yet an unresolved mystery in that, as the time would demand transparency and that too in a democratic system like what we have now, for the parties in conflict then, read the Palace and the SPA, prefer either not to disclose the details of the entire secret political overtures or beg to differ with what the King has freshly said that there had been some secret agreements in between the King and the agitating SPA. Confusion galore.
This confusion leaves us all to arrive at one single conclusion: either the then King is wrong or the parties. Neither the King has given details of the secret agreements that may have been signed as stated in his D-Day message nor do the parties associated with the SPA collect the courage to furnish the entire picture of what may or may not have happened in those eventful days.
Thus the bewilderment gets more convoluted.
Firstly, the then King who waited for some good eight years to ventilate his inner feelings perhaps too has failed to bring to the notice of the public the photocopy of the secret but yet signed agreements that he may have in his possession which has encouraged his detractors to pounce upon him to the extent that Madhav Kumar Nepal, who once applied for PM Post at the Royal Palace, if one were to recall, openly rejects the former King’s claim that there had been some agreements with the seven party alliances. This is not all. Madhav Nepal even goes to the extent that he challenges the former King to come to his private residence and sit in for a debate wherein Madhav perhaps intends to disprove the former King’s hypothetical claims. The tea perhaps that he will serve during the talks will be from Asam not from Kanyam hopefully.
Says Madhav Nepal that even if there may have been some understanding with the King then that would be just to recite Pasupati Nath Ley Hami Sabaiko Kalyan Garun. And that’s it. The Delhi MBBS free scholarship is no longer a secret? Here Mr. Nepal remains silent.
The most disturbed by the former King’s D-day message were Madhav Nepal and Krishna Prasad Sitaula. Sitaula has a lose point in that he questions the King that if there had been some agreements to retain monarchy then why King Gyanendra vacated the Palace so willingly? His question is valid but yet a lose one. How Sitaula emerged from nowhere in the political scene then perhaps many of us understand better and thus his rebuttal demands no special attention. Indeed New Delhi understand it better.
However Mr. Nepal, a key person during the fateful negotiations as the King claims, must have enough knowledge as to what may have transpired, both verbal and written prior to the resurrection of the dead parliament? But why Mr. Nepal whose close connections with the New Delhi South Block remains an open secret is exhibiting his reluctance and at times makes irrational comments and more so why he is afraid of making public the particulars of the entire happening verbatim which may have kept both the Palace and the SPA busy in those final days of the last movement?
Late Girija Prasad Koirala, who was later sworn in as Nepal PM by the same King is no more with us and thus it is only Mr. Nepal who could shed light in this issue that has been suddenly floated by the now sidelined monarch. Mr. Nepal should have the courage to speak the truth and the population would remain highly obliged if the latter enlightens the lay men. He must speak the truth now.
There is a school of thought in Kathmandu which strongly believes that an astute political persona like what the former King is may not have given a new life to the ‘dead parliament’ for free. He must have bargained. But what he demanded as against the resurrection of the dead parliament? Surely it must not have been a charity affair. Thus former King’s fresh claims demand adequate and broader debate among the larger section of Nepali intellectuals and also among the political leaders who now have been dominating the political scene.
And what about Dr. Karan Singh? Dr. Singh was here as Indian government emissary to mediate the conflict in between the King and the SPA. What had transpired in between the King, Dr. Singh and the SPA leaders must come to light which shall in essence make the things in debate clear once and for all. Connect it with what Pasupati Rana had freshly said. Mr. Rana must not have made comments in favor of the sidelined King without having talks with his relative-Dr. Karan Singh.
Talking of Upendra Yadav, well he too believes that since the Congress and the UML leaders were too much reluctant in declaring Nepal a republican state in the initial days and thus he doesn’t rule out the possibility of the existence of such an agreement in between the King and the SPA leaders.
Dr. Karan Singh, if listening, must clarify his own version of the entire Nepal events and as a Vedanti he would speak the truth and truth only is expected.
He must clarify whether the King or the parties were correct in their versions? His clarification has meaning. Facts must be made public.
@telegraph
