The King is hardly a casual bystander in any monarchy

-Shrish Rana, senior political analyst, Kathmandu

Mr. Shrish Rana needs no introduction to the regular readers of this newspaper. He has appeared in these columns a couple of times in the past. We invite him as and when certain political events rock the country in order to benefit from his analyses.

Mr. Rana is a senior political analyst of the country. His analyses have generally been taken in good taste and appreciated by the Nepali academic sector. He sees the ongoing political events in its right perspective and hence his critical analyses penetrate into the minds of the readers.

Without wasting much of your precious time, we wish to present to you Mr. Rana with his comments on some contemporary questions posed to him by this weekly last week. Below the results: Chief editor.

TGQ1: How you Mr. Rana as a political analyst would prefer to interpret COAS Prazzwala Rana's March 27 statement which apparently created ripples in the Nepalese politics.

Also tell us whether COAS Rana is allowed to make such fiery statements as per the existing constitution? Your comments please.

Shrish Rana: The army chief's statement only underscores the extra-ordinary circumstances in the country. Note that the contents of his statement have found little dispute in public. He has received the perhaps anticipated public rebuke for exceeding democratic norms in going public. The jolt he has given the political sector which is by and large the sole contributor of these extraordinary circumstances was perhaps long overdue.

TGQ2: A section of the Nepali intellectuals wish the King to intervene and do the needful in order to bring back to rails the already derailed nation. Will it be desirable and even advisable? Also tell us whether the King is allowed to do so by the constitution? What if the current major political parties, the major beneficiaries of the present system albeit, forge a sort of alliance and come to the streets and chant slogans against the King in case the monarch intervened as wished by the said set of intellectuals? Your opinions please.

Shrish Rana: The king is hardly a casual bystander in any monarchy. It is the monarchy that granted Nepal this constitution. There is little room to doubt that the king will want the constitution to work. Whatever his actions, he will be doing the needful constitutionally. Your worry that the beneficiaries of the current malaise will react will be a genuine public concern not altogether hidden in any possible attempts at correction..

TGQ3: Maoists have apparently hinted that they were ready for talks with the establishment. The government appears reluctant. The Nepali civil society too favours talks. The state of the nation you know it better. What you would suggest both the government and the Maoists under such circumstances? Also tell us whether or not we need the support of neighbouring India in containing the Maoists threats? Your remarks please.

Shrish Rana: The immensity of the problem is such that its solution would welcome assistance from all, foreign as also national. The need for talks is genuine. The challenge is in insuring its legitimacy and de-linking it from mere partisan strategy be they on part of the Maoists or the others.

TGQ4: The UML and the congress appear hell bent on effecting certain changes in the constitution. Majority of the population including the informed citizenry has been denied their voice in this regard by the advocators of the reforms. Is it advisable to effect changes at such crucial period? Is it necessary to bring about certain reforms as demanded by the UML and the congress? Do you see any ulterior motive in the whole process? Your exclusive comments please.

Shrish Rana: Any serious student of political science will tell you that it is not constitutions but political practice that inhibit democracy here. Even the very advocates of the current platform of change admit that they themselves are accountable for the current political mess. The solution, as common sense would dictate, is in shaping themselves rather than in giving the constitution another shape. The demands regarding the constitution, when analysed in content, starkly expose the bankruptcy of a political sector obsessed with removing mounting public threats to themselves by securing the advantages they have for themselves at the expense of the public and the nation. .

TGQ5: Congress president Koirala claims that his Broader Democratic Alliance could be the prescription for the country's present ailments including the Maoists insurgency. How do you take his claim?

Finally, how you see the UML-ML reunification? Does this hint that this communist paraphernalia will usurp power next general elections?

Shrish Rana: Any sincere political move from the organised political sector to tackle the current situation including Girijababu's Broader Democratic Alliance or the UML-Ml reunification would be more than welcome if they do succeed in materialising and doing what they say they will do. You will admit, unfortunately, that there are just too many reasons behind the mass scepticism and the public belief that these are mere gimmicks to strengthen their own political clout at the expense of the people.

Headline | National | Editorial | 2nd Impression | International | Past