Two weeks ago, when the former king Gyanendra Shah left Kathmandu airport from Pokhara, the waves of tremors that went to the republican camp have not stopped since the crowd turned out in favor of the monarchy. After that vibration there are other minor 'political aftershocks' of action-reaction. On the one hand, the monarchists are trying to create an atmosphere of 'decisive movement', while the republican leadership has been limited to 'insignificant reaction'.

The country is becoming polarized into monarchist and republican divisions for unknown reasons. From Parliament to streets, from tea shops to star hotel night parties, many assessments are being made about the fate and future of this polarization. Moreover, some experts have not only suspected that India's Nepal policy has changed, but also speculated that it may have an indirect role in the latest developments. 

In this perspective, basically three questions are in the center of interest. First, will there be a 'decisive people's movement' as claimed by the monarchist power? Will the monarchists have the strength to bring a storm of movement to change the system? Secondly, if that happens, what will the reactionary republicans do? Do they have the strength left to quell the monarchist movement? Thirdly, as suspected and speculated, does India have a role in the current movement?

Rajawadi rank A year ago, the president of Rashtriya Prajatantra Party (RPPA) Rajendra Lingden said, 'Now there will be a war between the monarchists and republicans and the parties will be forced to course correction.' This announcement was made by RPP in March. At that time, the RPP held a rally in favor of the monarchy and raised slogans against the party leader. However, the movement could not put pressure on the level of returning the king and Selayo. 

After a year, when the former king left Pokhara for Kathmandu, the royalists who were relaxed by the presence that was seen to welcome him, have once again moved forward for the movement saying warpar war. Dissident and religious groups other than RPP have also joined it. Moreover, with the demise of the Panchayats, even the inactive old Panchas have become excited and advocated for the monarchy. A 'United People's Movement' has been announced under the leadership of former president of Rashtriya Panchayat Navraj Subedi.  With the

announcement, dissatisfaction and controversy have been sown over his leadership. However, after the establishment of the republic in the country, the monarchists found a favorable political environment for the first time. The enthusiasm of the former king, the daily meetings/engagement of the royalist groups, maximum publicity/propaganda done through social media, has rippled politics and society. 

Republic was established in the country through the Constituent Assembly after the political changes that took place on the strength of the historical people's movement. There was a storm of popular movement when the masses moved against the autocratic monarchy under the leadership of the Maoist and parliamentary parties. Yesterday, as the people created a storm of people's movement and reconciled the monarchy, have the same people again started agitating for its restoration? Will the people be ready to change the system again at the call of the royalist group? 

These questions that have been raised now will be resolved over time. However, this much can be said, seventeen years after the loss of the monarchy, the crowd in the streets in favor of the former king is not spontaneous. This is the culmination of dissatisfaction with the dominance of dictatorship in politics. In that crowd, there is much more dissatisfaction with the party leadership than fascination or attraction towards the monarchy. Therefore, it is premature to conclude that the discontent of the leaders will become the basis for changing the system. 

dynasties and former kings have some traditional followers. It is not that people/groups who are advocating it due to opportunity, ego and various interests are not there, but the level of public opinion required to change the system itself is not in favor of the monarchy which has become history. The people who expressed their opinion for democracy in 2007, 2046 and 2063 will not decide the opposite way by rising for the revival of autocracy. 

Again, at least two things are essential to bring about a storm of mass movement. Leadership and issues. First, Navraj Subedi, who had come forward to start a 'United People's Movement' under his leadership, has been rejected at first sight. Even the royalists themselves have been shocked by the announcement that they are not confident in his leadership. The royalists are also suffering from the disease of not accepting each other's leadership. 

There are two views in the royalist group. Some people think that the former king himself should take the leadership of the people's movement and the people support him. Others think that the king should not go out on the streets. Subedi, the coordinator of the people's movement, told the king until he died. He has announced that

will not be allowed to come to the streets. He wants to see the restoration of the monarchy under his leadership. Lingden believes that the reins of the movement should be in his hands. Durga Prasai feels that he created the atmosphere of the royalist movement. He says that the king must come to the streets, otherwise others will not be considered leaders. Will the monarchist movement have direction or no direction due to the clash of various leadership aspirations and interests? There is room for doubt. 

Next, the matter of the case. Monarchists are not clear on the issue either. Someone wants a constitutional king. Some want to revive the 2047 constitution. They are saying that another type of new agreement should be made. A third type is said to be a ceremonial or cultural king. They say they should keep the executive prime minister and the ceremonial king. What kind of king are the royalists looking for? What is the issue of the movement? This ambiguity has not appealed to the public. The royalists do not have a clear issue of mobilizing and attracting the people for the people's movement. 

At the time of serious introspection

If so, will the republicans be confident? Not even that. The people's dissatisfaction expressed through the greeting of the former king on the streets is a strong warning for the political leadership currently in the party system. There is no doubt that the leaders came to power after being elected through elections. However, the crisis of trust between the people and the leadership is deepening. Issues like federalism, secularism, the main pillars of democracy, are weak.

Public opinion is becoming strong in favor of Hindu nation. A faction within the ruling Congress is trying to raise the issue of Hindu nation again. These sparks of widespread discontent are enough to ignite the fires of anarchy. The royalist line is trying to sow instability and chaos by understanding this environment. If they can make the current politics more unstable, anarchic and violent, the monarchist power is trying to see if the desire to revive the monarchy can be fulfilled. 

Ironically, despite understanding this environment, the top political leadership did not seem prudent. Instead of looking for the reason for the dissatisfaction of the people, instead of immediately diagnosing it, the republican leadership has been reactive. Republicans have reacted in three ways. 

First, after the public activism of the former king, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and former Prime Ministers Sher Bahadur Deuba, Prachanda, Madhav Nepal, Baburam Bhattarai, etc. all have the same rhythm. The top leaders of the ruling and major opposition parties, who are playing the role of power politics, are unanimously criticizing the former king. They are claiming that the monarchy will not return because there is no alternative to the republic, and they have been warning and criticizing the former monarchy. 

Secondly, Samajwadi Morcha, UML and others have announced public mobilization programs against the monarchist movement. Republicans are also planning to demonstrate street power to counter the monarchists. Thirdly, they are seeing the role of external forces in the monarchist movement. Even UML has gone one step further and has decided that the royalists were protesting at the instigation of India from the secretariat meeting. 

It is natural for the republican camp to oppose the monarchist power politically. Public demonstrations or street power demonstrations to showcase the republic's achievements may be taken for granted, but as the top leadership focuses on sarcasm and criticism, it will further fuel the tense political atmosphere. The 'childish' behavior of teasing the neighbors, increasing confrontation and excitement will not remove the clouds in the sky of the Republic.

Rather, such tendencies serve the vested forces that are waiting for an opportunity for excitement and chaos. The political struggle and the leadership removed from power politics did not understand this, but ignored it. This is where the wisdom of leadership should be revealed. The public outcry on the streets is not something to be ignored, at least in this way. Nor will the current crisis be resolved simply by saying that "there is no alternative to the republic, the monarchy will not return". 

Why are people angry? Why are there slogans against the leadership of the republic on the streets? Where did we go wrong? This is a time for serious introspection. In particular, introspection is not enough. Something should be done through 'action' to connect the broken rope of trust with the people. For that, the top leadership should be able to take some bold decisions. Like : 

First, the mass exodus: The majority of public opinion is now irritated with the top political leadership. Not this or that party, but the top political leadership of all parties is criticized. This leadership played a leading role in Nepal's democratic movement. Although he excelled in the politics of struggle, this leadership failed miserably in power politics. Many of the anomalies raised in the republic were raised in the nurseries of these so-called top leaders. This 'critical' suggestion is probably not digestible for this leadership that considers power as everything. However, the collective and voluntary exit of the top leadership of the republican parties may be a surefire way to assuage the current public anger. 

Second, formation of a powerful Property Commission: Misrule reigns in politics. The leaders themselves admit that the country is drowning in corruption. Especially here, one tends to see and accuse the other as corrupt. There are also mechanisms in place to measure and punish who is corrupt. However, they could not be effective as they fell prey to political factions. Therefore, if the powerful wealth commission demanded by all the leaders and political parties can be formed without delay, even if there is a little hope among the people, it can give rise to hope. 

Third, untested new leadership: The old generation will not make new leaders. Every new generation must have the courage to take the lead. The opportunism of the so-called newcomers is equally responsible for the lack of leadership. However, despite the lack of development in the process of selecting leadership based on methods, competition and programs, distortions increased in the republic. If the door can be opened to the selection of new leadership based on competition and programs in the government and party bodies, it can also slow down the regression. 

Apart from these, we should be able to improve the electoral system, effectively implement federalism, and in essence, guarantee people-oriented governance. Now the republicans are looking for ways to form a national government, to fight against the monarchists together. He does not have a self-correcting and improving agenda. However, it is necessary for the republicans to be honest with Thamin because of the increased public anger. 

Decisive Janata

As far as India's role in the royalist movement is concerned, it is the cry of those who cannot keep their wallets safe. At present, both monarchists and republicans are vying to drag India into their domestic affairs. Rajawadi has taken to the streets with posters of Adityanath.

On the one hand, the spokespersons of the royalist group are explaining the benefits to India when the king comes. On the other hand, the secretariat meeting of the party leading the government openly concludes that there is a royalist movement at the instigation of India. The foreign minister of the same coalition government waits at the door of the Indian leaders and brings the news, 'India has no role in the change of power in Nepal.' India's role in Nepali politics is not a hidden issue. Nor is it a matter to be ignored. Should India understand Nepal's interest and self-interest and make its mature position accordingly or invite it to interfere in domestic affairs? Aren't we the ones who criticized India for 'micro-management' in Nepali politics? At times, there are many instances where the political level is not connected and the personnel and intelligence are dominated.