Chairman of CPN Maoist Center Pushpa Kamal Dahal (Prachanda) has started to see the rise of people in his favor all around. On Saturday, he said in a program, "Wherever I go, I see people touching me, looking at me, taking pictures."

Such was the case in 2064. Wherever he went, there were old people, young and old, and children, as if they could touch him once. I see that happening now.'

There is extreme dissatisfaction with the political leadership among the public. Even the top leadership of major parties is at the center of discontent and anger. Not only the ruling leaders, but also the main opposition leader Prachanda, who left power seven months ago, is not satisfied with the civil circle. There is a general consensus that all the leaders, including him, who are at the top of politics should bid farewell.

In this background, Prachanda has seen the increase of people in his favor, what do you say to his self-evaluation? Is that his ego? Or is he trying to infuse energy into the mentally debilitated ranks of workers? Or are the political foundations really being laid for the resurgence of the Maoists? Prachanda's claim has raised these and such questions.

Most leaders' speeches are meant for public consumption. To raise the psychology of the workers, they are giving many expressions for their consumption. Prachanda is happy with it. Not now, since the peace process. So from one angle, his claim to return to the status quo of 064 for himself and the party may be motivated by a motive to energize the workers.

Also, leaders make speech a bridge of self-confidence. They exaggerate their work and efforts but do not appreciate the good things of their opponents. However, Nepali political leadership is also suffering from self-centered mentality.

When a person is self-indulgent, overestimates his achievements, values ​​himself more than others, psychologists call this mental state 'narcissism'. There is no shortage of 'narcissists' with this kind of attitude in Nepali politics. Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli has this trend more. Is Prachanda also standing in the same line?

Prachanda is constantly claiming that he and his party will return to the state of 2064 after being overthrown. What is the political basis of his claim? Or is this just a symptom of his self-esteem 'narcissism'? In the light of these questions, this analysis focuses on Prachanda's political character. Prachanda is a leader who keeps changing colors to be a

. It is not so easy to make a statement about Prachanda, who keeps changing the interpretations according to himself and the situation. Prachanda basically has two faces in Nepali politics. One, the rebel leader. Another, power-hungry leader.

Prachanda was a rebel leader who led decades of violent politics. He was labeled a 'terrorist' by the then government. The image of Prachanda, who spent a long underground political life, became a 'myth' due to the decade-long violent uprising.

During the war, people used to make many guesses and conjectures about Prachanda. Like the hero of a story, he used to ponder and say, 'It will be like this, it will be like that'. Prachanda, who emerged as a myth in the foundation of violence, was naturally a subject of attraction when he landed in peaceful politics through peace talks after the mass movement in collaboration with the Maoist and parliamentary political parties. As he told

Saturday, people were generally attracted to him. People wanted to see him, not just touch him. The hope and expectation of a peaceful political environment was the main reason for people's attraction to the man who led the change that came with the sacrifice of 17,000.

Due to the violent conflict, peace and security was not only disrupted, but politically the country was caught in the chaos of instability. With the peaceful descent of the Maoists, there was a general attraction to the party and its leadership, hoping for an end to that instability. Since the power has not been tested, the people also expected that 'the new party will do something new'. The emergence of Maoists as the largest party in the first Constituent Assembly elections of 2064 was probably due to this reason.

Maoists have now lost the political ground they gained in 2064. This is the main reason for the loss of political ground, the changed faces of Prachanda after coming to open politics. However, even during the underground period, his party members who cooperated with him and enjoyed him did not face his different tendencies and faces.

However, after 2064, Prachanda's face was commonly seen. As such, he has emerged as an unstable political leader. Also, he himself considers himself a 'flexible' leader. He evaluates himself as a leader who does not stay 'rigid' in anything, and is ready to break the knot of consensus and cooperation. However, in 17 years of open political life, Prachanda has proven himself to be politically unstable time and time again.

When he first became Prime Minister in the early days of open politics, he had no experience of power. Having just come from a rebel background, it was impulsive. It had an obligation to transform ten years of violence into a peaceful one. In that way, some of his immature steps, errors/weaknesses could be ignored by giving him the benefit of the doubt. However, as the days of open politics progressed, his political character began to erode to the extent that his will to power took hold. He forgot his political background, land, issues and considered power as everything.

The role he played in bringing about peaceful politics was positive. It was in itself a rare opportunity for the same person to play a leading role in rebellion and peaceful politics and constitution-making. Prachanda fulfilled such an opportunity, his role is memorable. However, Prachanda, who has been in contact with the leadership of the party for four decades, could not keep the party united.

The party became weak due to frequent divisions. In order to save the 'bargaining power' of the Maoists, which was weakening in politics, he sometimes took refuge in the Congress and sometimes in the UML. The practice of party front bandh and unification with UML was also not pleasant. The front blockade and power cooperation with the Congress did not last. In the past two-three years of power politics, Prachanda proved the identity of 'unstable leader' to be true.

In the general election of 2079, he contested in alliance with the Congress. According to the election results, Maoists became the third political party. Congress and UML became the first and second parties respectively. The fledgling Rashtriya Swatantra Party (RASWPA) emerged as the fourth party. In the general election of 2079, the math of Parliament became like this, where the role of the third largest party in the power equation became important. It was generally understood that the first and second largest parties, the Congress and the UML, generally do not share power. Therefore, in terms of the third largest party, Prachanda's dominance was maintained in the power coalition.

Prachanda, who termed his 32 seats in the parliament as a 'magic number', repeatedly shrugged off the ruling coalition. Sometimes UML and sometimes Congress. After Prachanda's ambition for power, the alliance between Congress and UML, he has finally left the ring of power. Even after being alienated from power, all his activities and expressions are guided by the game of gaining power. To say

, he has claimed many times in his speeches that he will not join the power game. However, his expressions, his 'moves' are not even an inch below sattakhel. His speeches are aimed at Oli rather than criticizing the entire coalition government. While making one after another insults towards Oli, he is soft towards Congress and Sher Bahadur Deuba. His attempt to raise the RSVP and Ravi Lamichhane on his shoulders is only a part of his power strategy.

Speaking in Parliament recently, Prachanda accused the government of taking political revenge against Ravi Lamichhane. Secondly, he proclaimed that there was a difference between the top leaders of the power coalition and himself, saying, "That is the difference between you and me." I say let the new party and the new leader flourish. You say that you will be trampled.'

Prachanda's expressions are not responsible and honest statements. On the one hand, Prachanda has crossed the Laxmanrekha line by expressing his opinion on the judicial process of the court. Second, how many leaders did Prachanda give birth to in the Maoists who allowed new leaders to grow and flourish? Can he escape that question? Today, where are the budding leaders who criticized Prachanda, who ruled the party for four decades with monopolism and familyism in the last period? Why are leaders like Lekhnath Neupane becoming irrelevant today when criticizing the authoritarianism of

leadership? Why are you shocked when one Janardhan Sharma appears to find an alternative to his leadership? Many questions will surround him. The people understand that how generous and tolerant Prachanda leaders of both violent and peaceful eras are in terms of leadership development and transfer, the Maoists understand it even more.

Prachanda's presence in Parliament is not incomprehensible in terms of the main opposition. With Oli, Juhari is getting poorer. On January 24, Prachanda spoke for more than an hour as the main opposition leader in Parliament. He opposed the government's intention to rule by decree. He criticized it for having formed a government by middlemen.

claimed that the government was undemocratic and arbitrary. Certainly, there is widespread distaste for the Congress-UML government at the moment. The Congress-UML government, which was said to be the last opportunity and experiment, has not worked as per the people's expectations. This is leading to failure. The leaders of the ruling coalition are under tremendous pressure as they are unable to form a positive opinion towards the government. However, the government proving to be unpopular and incompetent does not mean that Prachanda or Maoist will succeed.

Many questions and references raised by Prachanda in Parliament are justified. But, doesn't that question also arise on him? Prachanda has raised many such questions, for which he himself will have to bear the moral responsibility. Is he a 'clean' leader who is not a middleman for power and the visible, invisible power of selfishness? Especially among the top level leaders who are in power, it has become a formality for him to defend the government and protest when he is in the opposition. Yesterday, when Prachanda was in government, the examples of opposition leaders who protested in this style and manner are found in the records of the parliament.

The truth is that the parties that emerged from political movements such as Congress, UML, and Maoist are currently in a circle of questions. The people are questioning what this party, which has ascended to power many times, has done after reaching the government. People are angry with all of them for not being able to do anything tangible. Moreover, the top leadership of all these parties are saying that they should leave active politics. At this time, if Prachanda sees that people are coming to his side, then what is it if it is not his illusion? What Prachanda forgot or did not understand is that crowds gather to watch the circus.