In the past few days, prime minister-cum-’chairman’ Prachanda has been beating some hasty retreats. He had to yield to pressure over his ill-thought out and hurried appointments of Nepali priests in the Pashupatinath temple, and annul it after believers cutting across party lines condemned the act of ‘ sacrilege’.

The first and most sober appeal came from Gyanendra, his first after he ceased to be the king some eight months ago, asking the government to protect the ‘sanctity’ of Pashupatinath and the traditional social and religious amity of Nepal. Prachanda, who heads a political party with a strident ‘anti-America’ and ‘anti-India’ worldview, probably thought that getting rid of Indian priests would widen support at home. But that misfired, as Nepali society favoured protecting the sanctity of lord Pashupatinath. They consistently displayed religiosity without fanaticism. But for the first time, an overwhelming majority of the Hindus who constitute more than 85 per cent of the total population, feared that they would suffer under an ‘atheist government’.

People voted for Prachanda’s party for ‘peace and democracy’, and by now opposing him when he tried to undermine their religious sentiments, their message was equally loud and clear — that the right to religion is a non-negotiable fundamental right in a democracy. In fact, the Supreme Court defended that right as it stayed the new appointments.

But by not honouring the court’s order for five days, the government created a dangerous situation where those who respect constitutional orders, moderate Hindus and fanatics could ally against it. Although many believe that Prachanda is still trying a ‘one step backward and two steps forward policy before he demolishes the people’s right to religion’, there are political forces which believe Nepalis can defeat any authoritarian designs.

... contd.