The proclamation by the Nepalese Parliament abolished the control of the King over the Royal Nepalese Army, renamed it as the Nepalese National Army, scrapped the position of the King as the Supreme Commander of the army, and that the Cabinet and not the King will henceforth name the Commander-in-Chief of the army. The proclamation abolished the institution of Raj Parishad or the Privy Council which under the old Constitution used to name a successor or a regent to the throne if the reigning monarch died or was incapacitated (henceforth the Parliament and not the King will name the successor and the monarch will have no say relating to royal succession), the government will be known as Nepalese government and not as Royal Nepalese government. The proclamation has put an end to Nepal being the only Hindu kingdom in the world by embracing secularism as the state principle.

The Parliament declared that the proclamation would not need Royal assent to become law as it was the sovereign decision of the people (there was no dissenting vote against the resolution). The three countries -- India, the US, UK -- and the UN have critical stake in Nepalese situation and have, in varying degrees, the capacity to influence the events in Nepal. The US welcomed the proclamation as a "historic step" and did not think that the army would be politicised because it has been brought under the control of the Parliament but remained wary of the Maoists. The newly appointed Assistant Secretary for South Asian and Central Asian Affairs Richard Boucher told very recently the US House International Committee that "the Maoists have been an exceptionally brutal insurgency, and their forces have been accustomed to the control over the country side through terror". He demanded of the Maoists to lay down arms, end use of violence and intimidation, and accept the rule of law.

The British welcomed the historic declaration by the Parliament as an expression of people's sovereignty and expressed support for the Constituent Assembly and disarmament to bring the Maoists within the mainstream of domestic political system. Indian reaction has been through Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's telephonic conversation with G.P.Koirala and invitation to the Nepalese Foreign Minister to visit Delhi. The inopportune support extended by the Indian Special envoy Dr Karan Singh to King Gyanendra's too little too late offer of 21st April was brushed off both by the Nepalese political parties and the people as insufficient and unpopular. The Nepalese people braving the King's shoot-to-kill given to the army encouraged the political parties to stand firm against ill-advised foreign pressure. International Crisis Group suggests to the foreign actors to accept that "Nepal's people are the drivers of international engagements and that in the changed domestic political environment its parties, civil society groups, and other representatives are in a better position than before to make their own suggestions".

Fears have been expressed that euphoria of people's power in the wake of almost total eclipse of monarchical authority could result in "illiberal democracy" in Nepal without constitutional liberalism producing centralised regime, ethnic competition and conflict. Such fears are expressed by those who have achieved, by Francis Fukuyama's measure, level of development, culture and ideas to sustain democratic process, and historian Bernard Lewis' observation that democracy is a peculiarly Western concept devised to conduct public affairs that may or may not be suitable for other people. Such arrogant elitist views do not take into account that civilised code of conduct should make way for differences in widely divergent societies that are imbued with different, and often, conflicting set of values. Western social permissiveness, for example, could be considered as equivalent to the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah inviting divine wrath. It would, therefore, be difficult to accept Hegelian interpretation of a Constitution as reflective of concentrated wisdom of long historical developments and thereby negating the possibility of borrowing from the experience of others.

In Nepalese case the challenges would mainly focus on the limits of monarchical powers, whether Nepal should have a monarchy at all (the Maoists demand a republic and trial of King Gyanendra), and disarming the Maoists in order to bring them within the fold of democratic process and to bring peace to the country. Brad Adams (of Human Rights Watch) feels that the Constituent Assembly could consider, despite yearning by the civil society groups and the declared intention of the Maoists to end monarchy, to "emulate Cambodia which stipulated in its 1993 Constitution -- not once, but twice -- that the King reigns but does not rule".

The move to declare Nepal as a secular state is, perhaps, aimed at demolishing the monarch's image as a reincarnation of Hindu God Vishnu believed by many Nepalese in rural areas. The other problem to be solved by the seven-party alliance is the disarming of the Maoists. Already both the government and the Maoists have nominated their respective representatives to the negotiation talks. Maoists' demands remain too radical for conservative Nepal Congress parties to accept. Besides, the Maoists' reported control of 70 per cent of the countryside raises the question whether the Maoists would allow other parties to take up political activities in those areas unless they agree to the proposal of cantonment of their forces along with that of the Nepalese army.

Since human rights violations have been perpetrated both by the Maoists and the Nepalese army can one conceive of a South African style Truth and Reconciliation Commission or trial by an International Tribunal as is proposed for Khmer Rouge? Maoist leader Prachanda's April 27th statement that the ceasefire was intended to facilitate the struggle for a Constituent Assembly and democratic republic "so as to lead the struggle to its historic conclusion" has confused many people. One is not very sure what is meant by "historic conclusion". One saving grace that the Maoists do not have transnational ambition is the Indian official assessment that Nepalese Maoists do not provide significant material assistance to the Indian insurgents.

Though Nepal has yet many miles to traverse before the Maoist rebels and the entrenched monarchists can be brought within the orbit of law, Bangladesh as a neighbour and a member of SAARC would like crisis in Nepal to end quickly.

One cannot, however, be oblivious of the irony that while the sagacity and wisdom of another King forced an errant Prime Minister to resign though his party secured more than fifty percent of the votes cast in a disputed general election, induced the country's Constitutional Court to annul the election and call for the resignation of the Election Commission as it lacked the confidence of all the political parties, neighbouring countries' rulers like the King of Nepal and Bangladesh authorities refuse to take lesson from the wisdom cited above. After all, the country is always more important than those who rule that country at any given moment of time.

Kazi Anwarul Masud is a former Secretary and Ambassador.