Making of history is on in neighbouring Nepal. While the torrent of people’s movement forced the end of autocratic monarchy bringing to an end the misadeventure of Gyanendra, the process of building a democratic Nepal is unfolding in the Himalayan state. 1990-‘91 movement has been carried forward and brought to fruition with the end of extraordinary powers the monarchy was able to force upon the parties leading the movement then. 2006 has been a different story. Revolutionary armed struggle waged by Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) since 1996 had brought large areas under the control of the revolutionary forces and has played a big role in the movement to end the autocratic monarchy. They represent the forces to take the process forward. Not only that, the people of Nepal have come out in struggle. They wish to ensure that monarchy is thoroughly uprooted and the Seven Parties’ Alliance (SPA) Govt. takes CPN (Maoist) to end the civil war in Nepal and bring about progressive changes in the country inclusive of different sections of society till now kept out of power.

While revolutionary armed struggle with the people’s support enjoyed by it in vast areas of Nepal and the initiative of the democratic sections of society are the factors propelling the process forward, the reactionary classes represented by the ruling class parties, the main constituents of SPA, and the Nepalese Army (earlier Royal Nepal Army), with its reactionary feudal, monarchist top officers are the forces impeding such a development. There are contradictions between SPA leadership and Nepalese Army top officers with King waiting in the wings. The political developments in Nepal are playing out the contradictions between the two futures of Nepal- whether Nepal will see a reformist, slow process of consolidation of ruling classes, big landlords and big capitalists, or Nepal will witness a thoroughgoing revolutionary change to bring to power the workers, peasant masses and other revolutionary classes. This battle is being fought in the new conditions wherein the autocratic monarchy has been thrown out and democratic rights of the people have been restored to some extent. Nepal has reached an important turning point and is aflush with these challenges.

It is in this backdrop that the road-maps of leading constituents of SPA and CPN(M) are coming into conflict. But the struggle is more than about the road map. It is about the content of the new dispensation to be put into place under the post- April 2006 conditions. The contours and the content of the new constitution will be determined by the interplay between these forces which will in turn be conditioned by the balance of class forces in Nepal. Repeated meetings between the leadership of CPN(M) and SPA, their agreements and differences, reiteration of agreements and new differences, are reflections of the contradictions of this process. Leadership of SPA wishes to play off CPN(M) against Nepalese Army and the vice versa, trying to consolidate their political space, their power and augment their control over the future developments.

As it is always the case is such situations, the question of armed forces has emerged as the central question. Obviously the situation has changed since SPA and CPN(M) had signed the 12-point understanding. At that time SPA had no armed formation and the then RNA (now Nepalese Army) was with the monarchy. Now SPA is in power and is endeavouring to bring Nepalese Army under their control. It is not without reason that Army has been kept out of the investigations into suppression of the people's movement while it was the RNA that had played the most important role in that suppression. Earlier the main focus was what to do with RNA, now the main focus is sought to be shifted as to what to do with the armed forces of CPN (Maoist). Earlier the main focus was the ill-deeds of RNA, now the focus is sought to be shifted to movement with arms, alleged extortions and forcible collections by the CPN(M) forces.

The participants in the political developments of Nepal- SPA and CPN(M) have repeatedly agreed on convening a Constituent Assembly to draft a new Constitution for Nepal. For holding these elections an interim Govt. with participation of CPN(M) is also agreed upon. But for such participation, SPA is putting a condition of 'managing the arms' of CPN(M) forces. Holding of these elections is going to take time in view of the tasks to be completed before that. Hence, SPA through the reinstated Parliament has brought out a declaration taking away most of the powers of monarchy. More changes in the same direction have also been made subsequently. While these changes do represent the aspirations of people of Nepal and seek to accomplish the tasks taken up by the participants in anti-monarchy struggle, they also dilute the urgency of convening the Constituent Assembly and seek to lull the people into believing that the tasks of the movement are accomplished.

But one of the core question is that of Nepalese Army, with its top officers drawn from feudal forces- Ranas, Shahs and Thapas, representing the interests of big landlords and big capitalists. For any progressive changes in the state, the Nepalese Army has to be reorganized with throwing out of anti-people forces consolidated in its top officers and integration of the other armed forces. This is the real question facing the progressive forces but main constituents of SPA do not appear to favour this course. They wish to fashion Nepalese Army as a prop to their power. Hence their emphasis now on activities of CPN(M) forces. The struggle unfolding in Nepal concerns all the Nepali people as well as well wishers of democratic Nepal including the revolutionary forces in India.

Gyanendra's Calculations or Miscalculations

While usurping all executive powers of the state after he dismissed Deuba Govt. on 1st February, '05, it was definitely not in Gyanendra's calculations that by this step he would move towards finishing off the wide powers given to the King by the Constitution made after 1990 movement and also 237 years rule of the Shah monarchy in Nepal. Taken up with re-establishing medieval feudal monarchy, Gyanendra foolishly sought to pull back the forward march of history.

Gyanendra's strategy was on the one hand to use the contradictions between the parliamentary parties and the CPN(M) and on the other to climb onto the bandwagon of US imperialism's "global war against terrorism" and win the support of USA, UK and the ruling classes of India for his much trumpeted campaign to defeat Maoists in Nepal. He believed that in course of time, all these forces would support the monarchy in his struggle against Maoists.

But Gyanendra was unable to understand the current world situation including the situation in India, nor did he recognize the deep churning going on in Nepali society. Under the pretext of freeing the country from the corruption of ruling politicians, a coterie of feudal thugs and military leaders established monopoly over state power under the leadership of Gyanendra. There was widespread opposition in Nepal to seizure of state power by Gyanendra.

Indian Govt. stopped military assistance to Nepal. Countries of European Union and America also stopped military supplies. China continued its earlier relations with Nepal Govt. terming Gyanendra's move as an internal affair of Nepal. Initially the main effort of the ruling classes of India was to bring the parliamentary parties and the King on one platform against the Maoists. Indian Govt. kept up holding constitutional monarchy and multiparty democracy as the twin pillars of Nepal. However, Indian Govt.'s efforts were frustrated by Gyanendra who banked upon support to his autocratic monarchy and refused to heed their call for coming to terms with parliamentary parties. US imperialists, however much they desired to support the King, understood the limitation of their direct intervention without support of Indian Govt. USA and Britain supported the stance of Indian Govt.

Within Nepal, the parliamentary parties organized some protest programmes but the conduct of the major parliamentary parties- Nepali Congress and CPN(UML)- during the period of their rule kept the common people away from these programmes. They lacked credibility among the people. It was on the advice of the then Prime Minister Deuba, that Gyanendra had dissolved Pratinidhi Sabha in October 2002. Even after dissolution of Pratinidhi Sabha Deuba and UML came together to form the Govt. which was dismissed by Gyanendra on February 1, 2005. It is also notable that G.P. Koirala (then Prime Minister) had repeatedly demanded use of the then Royal Nepal Army against Maoists and had resigned as PM due to King Birendra's refusal to allow the same.

However an important aspect of Nepal's situation was the revolutionary armed struggle under the leadership of the CPN(M) that had spread widely in the rural areas of Nepal. The CPN(Maoist) had emerged as a strong pole in Nepal's politics and the revolutionary armed struggle under its leadership came to occupy centre stage in Nepal.

Politics in Nepal got entangled in a triangular struggle- between CPN(M), parliamentary parties and the feudal military monarchist group led by Gyanendra. In order to uproot autocratic monarchy, and move towards democratic Nepal, the coming together of parliamentary parties and CPN (Maoist) was a political necessity.

SPA and CPN(M) joined hands to end autocratic monarchy

The historic agreement between SPA and CPN(M) in order to fulfil this need signalled the end of Gyanendra's autocratic monarchy. A 12-point agreement was reached between CPN(M) and SPA in November 2005. According to the statement issued by SPA and CPN(M) separately, "The long struggle between absolute monarchy and democracy in Nepal has now reached a very grave and new turn."

In that joint agreement, elections to the constituent assembly were recognized as the main political method towards ending absolute monarchy and "a forward-looking restructuring of the state". The statement mentions resolving the armed struggle under the leadership of CPN(M) in order to establish durable peace in Nepal, and the role of CPN(M) armed forces and RNA were also dealt with in the process leading to elections to the Constituent Assembly. According to the statement, "The nation has demanded constructive end of the present armed conflict and establishment of a lasting peace. Thus, we are fully committed to end autocratic monarchy and establish lasting peace through election to constituent assembly. In this regard, the CPN-M expresses its commitment to move into new peaceful political line. After bringing the autocratic monarchy to an end, we have agreed that the arms of both the Maoist’s armed force and the royal army will be supervised by the United Nations or a dependable international body to ensure free and fair election to the constituent assembly. Both parties have also agreed to accept the results of the elections."

Despite the joint commitment to develop people's movement against autocratic monarchy, the difference between CPN(M) and SPA remained on reinstatement of Parliament. Not only the Parliament had become unrepresentative, to demand its "reinstatement" pointed towards a constitutional way, a demand to be extracted out of King. The divergence was noted in the 12-point agreement:

" 2. The seven-party alliance is fully convinced that sovereignty and executive right of the people can be reestablished through the reinstatement of parliament on the basis of people’s movement; formation of all-party government with full executive power; talks with the Maoists and election to the constituent assembly. Whereas CPN-M believes that people’s sovereignty can be established through formation of an interim government formed after a national conference of agitating democratic forces, which will oversee the election to the constituent assembly. Both of us agree to continue negotiation and dialogue to reach common agreement in these procedural issues. However, we have agreed that people’s movement is the only way to attain our agreed goals."

CPN(M) had declared a three month cease-fire on September 2, '05 and on the appeal of SPA extended it by one more month. Using this opportunity Gyanendra ruling group intensified its army campaign against CPN(M). RNA also attacked the base areas of Maoists in western Nepal. In this situation, on January 2, '06 CPN(M) announced end of the cease-fire. The masses and the democratic opinion blamed Gyanendra for resumption of hostilities.

This agreement between CPN (Maoist) and SPA gave a new fillip to the mass movement. People started participating in large numbers in the programmes organized under the banner of SPA and its constituents. This agreement assured the people that the days of autocratic monarchy are numbered.  Gyanendra monarchy became shaky. The civic elections organized by Gyanendra in February 2006 were reduced to a farce following the boycott call of SPA and CPN(M). Despite putting the entire state machinery to work, people swept the whole process into the dustbin.  In the midst of all this, the Supreme Court held the constitution of Royal Commission on corruption as unconstitutional and dissolved the same and set free Deuba and Prakash Man Singh. While supporting  the movement against monarchy after his release, Deuba also raised some questions on certain aspects of 12-point agreement. Dispensing with diplomatic code of conduct, the US Ambassador  in Nepal openly opposed the 12-point agreement and demanded that SPA reject it. Britain's representative also took the similar position.

Opposing this interference by the US Ambassador, the SPA reiterated the 12-point agreement. In addition in order to dispel doubts in this regard, SPA and CPN(M) separately issued another statement on March 19, '06 stating "Following the twelve -point understanding, there is no doubt that the broad masses of the people have ratified the agreement through countrywide wave of movement and, as a result of it, the complete failure of the so-called municipal election, on February 8." The differences on procedure which were mentioned in 12-point agreement continued, along with the resolve to continue discussions to solve them. In particular the difference on reinstatement of Parliament continued. It was noted, "We would like again to remind that the agitating seven political parties are fully determined on the fact that, by way of reinstating parliament through the force of movement and, on its decision, establishing full democracy by organizing authorized multiparty government, having dialogue with the Maoists and electing Constituent assembly based on consensus, can the conflict be resolved in the country, and sovereignty and the state power be fully instituted among the people. CPN (Maoist) holds on and is determined that the aforesaid objectives can achieved by organizing a national political convention of the agitating democratic forces and, on its decision, electing constituent assembly." 

The Second Accord called upon all sections of society to intensify struggle against autocratic monarchy. In this agreement, SPA called for civil disobedience movement from 6th to 9th April in Kathmandu and other cities and widespread mass mobilization. In response to the demand of SPA, CPN(M) withdrew its blockade programmes and gave full support and help to Kathmandu centred struggle. CPN(M) organized blockade had badly affected life throughout Nepal.

The struggle programme which began from April 6 has now become history. RNA tried to suppress the struggle with military might but the storm of people's movement continually gained momentum. People started participating in lakhs and challenging the Army repression. With increasing people's participation, SPA extended the programme indefinitely. People's struggle against Gyanendra's autocratic monarchy entered a decisive phase. Many became martyrs, sacrificed their lives and limbs, adding fuel to people's fire. Demonstrations in Kathmandu became people's festivals. All sections of people joined the struggle. Their number kept on increasing despite curfew. People started removing symbols of Royal Govt.

Short on confidence but not cunning, Gyanendra on April 21, made last ditch effort by inviting SPA to form the Govt., yet another puppet govt. dependent on him. Despite the support to Gyanendra's announcement from India, US, UK and China, people of Nepal rejected it. India had earlier sent Karan Singh, a relative on Gyanendra, as official emissary. Nepali people gave their reply by unprecedented mobilization on April 23. Breaking the military cordons, people reached very close to Narayanhiti Palace. Rejecting Gyanendra manoeuvre, SPA announced a demonstration of 2 million people on April 25, 2006. Inability to suppress the people's movement led RNA top brasses to ask Gyanendra to yield. On April 24, Gyanendra made the announcement of reinstatement of parliament, handing over power to SPA referring to its road-map.

Welcoming the Royal proclamation, SPA termed it a people's victory. But CPN(M) was not consulted before welcoming the announcement nor its contribution was mentioned in SPA statement. The first response of CPN(M) was to denounce the proclamation and criticize SPA for welcoming it. Anyway the fall of monarchy was imminent given the vast mobilization of people and their determination to end his rule. US Ambassador to Nepal clearly stated that had the King delayed reconvening of assembly, the end of monarchy by violent means was not far off.

As mentioned earlier, SPA's welcome was due to the fact that major constituents of SPA favoured a 'constitutional' path of change. Going against the wishes of the people, G. P. Koirala chose to be sworn in by Gyanendra, a step also in the same direction. But the pressure of the movement was quite strong. On 28 April '06, a large demonstration was held outside the Parliament demanding elections to the Constituent Assembly without wasting time. On the proposal of Koirala, Parliament passed resolution in favour of elections to the Constituent Assembly in its first session. Koirala Govt. dissolved the municipal bodies elected in Feb. 8 elections and formed a commission to investigate and take action against those responsible for suppression of people's movement.

The April struggle brought the curtains down on Gyanendra's dream of restoring autocratic monarchy. People of Nepal have put it firmly down. But the direction Nepal takes from here constitute the challenges of the process of building democratic Nepal.