The law, which was unanimously passed on September 22, paved the way for hearing of accusations like corruption, rape and murder against members of the army by civilian courts instead of by military ones. The word "royal" was also removed from the army's name, which is seen by analysts as a major development towards democratisation of the Nepalese army. The army will now be known as "Nepal army."

The people of Nepal have long been fighting for the establishment of democracy, and strengthening of the country's democratic institutions. The armed forces were used to suppress street agitations of the people struggling for the establishment of their democratic rights. During the 14-month direct rule by the king many civilians had to embrace death at the hands of the country's law enforcing agencies.

The passage of the military bill has been described by Pradeep Gyawali, a minister, as "a major breakthrough in the democratisation of the Nepal army." The army usually used to conduct its activities in a secret manner. With the passage of the new law the Nepal army would become more transparent, another parliamentarian was quoted to have told news agencies.

The parliament, earlier this year, stripped King Gyanendra of his control over the country's armed forces. The king was compelled to end his nearly yearlong direct rule of the country following violent street protests.

The multi-party government and rebel Maoists have been observing a cease-fire since the restoration of the parliament. The Maoists are now in a "slow moving peace dialogue" with the government. The Maoists have said that wider consultation should have been made before the passage of the new law imposing tighter civilian control over the country's army.

It needs to be recalled here that all bills in parliament needed royal assent, and it was the king's prerogative whether to give assent or not. The parliament of 1999 was hardly able to represent public opinion, or even to introduce socio-political changes. Rather, the king could seize all parliamentary powers without violating the constitution.

This law, is likely to be cited as an example in other countries for strengthening civilian control over the army. Under the changed law recruitment will be carried out through public examinations instead of by the army.

King Gyanendra seized absolute power last year, but was compelled to hand it back to an interim government in April this year following several weeks of street protests. The dismissal of democratic governments is nothing new in Nepal. King Mahendra also dismissed the democratic government of Koirala in 1960, and put him, along with other leaders, behind bars.

On the other hand, the 1962 constitution, for the first time, officially identified the country as a Hindu kingdom, meaning establishment of Hindu values in every sphere of life. Since Nepal was a multiethnic state, even though it was not called so at that time, monarchy was seen as the unifying factor of the nation.

King Mahendra's brutal actions against the banned political parties, and their western democratic ideology, nipped every kind of resistance in the bud. For many years the party leaders, those who had not been imprisoned, could only be active while exiled in India, a situation well known since the time of Rana. It was in the 1970s that parties intensified underground activities in Nepal as well.

The constitution of 1990 laid the basis of the prevailing political system of the landlocked country. It was drafted by the representatives of the Nepali Congress and the left parties which had jointly organised the movement. They, together, tried to lay the foundation for a democratic system of Nepal.

The makers of the constitution rejected the idea of describing the country as a secular state, though the left parties and non-Hindu groups had loudly raised the demand. Interestingly, during the time of the movement, and also during the drafting of the constitution, terms like multiethnic and multilingual were emphasized together with the slogan for democracy. But equality of all citizens is a constitutional guarantee.

In 1991, the election commission withheld the recognition of three parties representing ethnic, or other, social groups that were discriminated against by the Hindu state. For the mid-term elections in 1994 this number grew to six. In fact the undemocratic structure of the major parties makes the introduction of broad based, and equal, participation of all strata of society even more difficult.

Only the established party elite, in all parties belonging to the Brahmins and Chetris, decide whether other groups in society are allowed to participate or not. This is to the disadvantage of those groups that already had been disadvantaged before the advent of democracy -- the ethnic groups, the so-called untouchables, the women and the Tarai population.

People around the world have been watching with interest the democratisation process of the army of Nepal. It, however, remains to be seen how democracy gains ground in the country which has seen unlimited powers of the monarchy for a very long time.

How the king reacts to major changes in the constitution, which curtail his unlimited power, is also being watched with interest by the people around the world. The ongoing peace talks between the government and the Maoists is also being carefully watched, as unless there is understanding between them lasting peace cannot be expected.

It needs to be mentioned that the country has witnessed, for more than ten years, a kind of revolution which has almost shaken the foundation of state and society. Maoists, who are loyal to the United People's Front which won nine seats in 1991 elections, were behind the revolution.

Nurul Huda is a BSS Special Correspondent