That the Maoists in Nepal had never been comfortable in the interim government became clear once again when they walked out of it and threatened to start an agitation if their demand was not met. They had wanted to quit earlier as well. On that occasion, they had been persuaded not to leave, and that may happen once again. But the threat will remain and that may well be ominous for the country.

The Maoists are accusing the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) of dragging their feet on the issue of abolition of the monarchy. Obviously, they are not satisfied with the measures taken so far to reduce the role of the palace and to strip it of its property. The Maoists want Nepal to be declared a republic right now, and not wait for the November elections. They insist that this is what the people want.

This is debatable. While it is no secret that the Nepalese had been fed up with the autocratic rule of King Gyanendra and his predecessors, there is little to suggest that they are not prepared to put up with constitutional monarchy. Within the ruling coalition, the Nepali Congress should not have a problem with that. Even the communists do not seem prepared to be as radical as the Maoists. They are more interested in putting in place a democratic way of life, which has always eluded Nepal. That was what the agitation, which put an end to palace rule, was all about. As long as the monarch remains confined to his palace and does not interfere in the functioning of democratic institutions, there should not be any cause for concern. And, in any case, the final say in the matter should rest with those whom the people elect in November.

Weak position

And there lies the problem for the Maoists. They had ruled the countryside with their guns. But do they command the same support without their weapons? If the answer is no, then they will not have the required strength in the assembly to dictate the future course of events. Any party wedded to constitutional politics would not have had reservations about this. But the Maoists still see themselves as a guerrilla outfit, which makes it difficult for them to accommodate any opinion but their own. They are suffering from a contradiction that is inherent in the arrangement whereby they agreed to join the ministry. Unfortunately for them, there is no historical precedent as to how this basic contradiction should be corrected. They can certainly go back to the jungle but will the people respond at a time when the tyrannical figure of the king is absent? As for the political parties, they do have definite power bases of their own. The Maoists, therefore, are operating not from a position of strength but from one of predicament.

How much of the support that the Maoists claim is genuine? Or have the Maoists garnered support by terrorizing the people? When Mao Zedong had spoken of political power growing out of the barrel of the gun, he had not meant buying support through terror. He had merely echoed the classic formulation that a peaceful transition to socialism was not possible. Those professing to be his disciples, both in Nepal and India, have taken the words a bit too literally.

In Nepal, the question that the Maoists must ask themselves is whether they are not actually seeking to create a situation in which it is the king who may actually return to occupy centre stage. Make no mistake, the palace still has its areas of support both within the country and outside. Largescale and prolonged lawlessness may see his supporters ushering the king back to power, bringing democracy to an end. To prevent any such eventuality, the Maoists must ensure that the constitutional process is followed even if that means that they have to pay a small price in the beginning.