Officially India has been saying it will accept whatever the Nepali people decide. But the Nepali people have not decided clearly, with no party acquiring a simple majority. Shyam Saran, perceived as India’s most authentic voice on Nepal, has suggested that it’s a mandate for the Maoists to lead a united government. But that is not the only voice coming from India’s officialdom.

The Communist Party of India-Maoists has asked its Nepali counterpart to use the mandate for a complete revolution instead of heading or being part of the government. But the constitutional impasse and tough attitude of the Nepali Congress (NC) and the Communist Party of Nepal-United Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML) against joining the Maoist-led coalition is only making things worse. With the king relegated to a grey zone, and the prime minister usurping the role and powers of head of state, a neutral and impartial constitutional exercise to steer the country out of this impasse is yet to take off.

The interim constitution, a document of convenience for the three major parties, lays down only two criteria for the election of prime minister. First, by consensus, failing which a two-third majority will be required. The Maoists have 220 in a House of 601. Prachanda harps more on the ‘mandate’ and his right to form the government, and less on the need to work on a common agenda. He has also been promising a ‘respectable position’ to some senior citizens including G.P. Koirala and chamatkar or magic on many vexed issues — almost promising a problem-free Nepal. If that does not work, he has threatened that lakhs of people will capture Kathmandu and all the 75 district headquarters.

Koirala, under pressure from his party to sever ties with the Maoists, wants to stick to the chair on the ground that Prachanda or anyone does not have a two-third majority support. If that fails, he is hell bent upon becoming the president by removing the king officially on the first day the constituent assembly meets later in the month. But the interim constitution does not have the provision of a president as head of state.

Moreover, the Maoists, NC and UML have divergent approaches on the model of the political system that Nepal should follow once the new constitution is adopted. But given his ambition, age and health, Koirala cannot wait. All the parties which are one on removing the king, are unclear about what comes after that.

In the first ever case that the Indian parliament faced of no party having a simple majority following the Janata Party split in 1979, then President Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy had simultaneously asked Jagjivan Ram and Charan Singh — belonging to different parties — to explore formation of government. On individual and party-wise verification of support, he ultimately invited Charan Singh to form the government. But Nepal does not have a neutral head of state who could explore such options.

The Maoists, on the other hand, have not approached other political parties for support on the basis of a ‘common agenda’. They are insisting that it is a mandate for their radical policy and way of politics. Their intolerant conduct towards their opponents continues.

But if the Maoists resort to power capture, not only will that lead to bloody conflict, but the party might once again cease to be a ‘legitimate’ player, even in the eyes of India and the rest of the world.

ghimire.yubaraj@gmail.com