Observers were not sure of political stability under the existing system at the time of its inception. But Nepalese threw up a surprise by providing an overwhelming majority to communists. There was a general public expectation that the newly elected government would live up to its promises. But it belied the public hopes. To begin with, there were signs of a strong and clean government but, as time went by, it went from bad to worse. Now the people no longer hope to see a change of heart in the new rulers. They are just waiting to see a conflagration of a proportion that could be dubbed as janaandolan (People’s Movement) to follow the suits in the past. The power-that-be is as usual blind to the public anger building up fast inside and outside public hearts.

As far as the political forces are concerned they were in the power tussle right from the beginning of 2017-post general elections. It was unusual to witness the losers to prolong its hold on power in a democratic dispensation when the people had given a clear mandate to the left forces against the so-called democratic forces. Those in power were groping over the faults in the fragile constitution to keep the victors away from power.

The constitution is very amenable in this respect. Firstly, a few weeks went by in getting the ordinance on the electoral process of the National Assembly settled. Secondly, the government had the prerogative to fix the date for the National Assembly poll, which would take one more month. Thirdly, it could take more time as the physical facilities for the new federal parliament were under reconstruction. One could make it a never-ending process. Fourthly, as the law and order situation was going from bad to worse due to the informal declaration of the provincial capitals, the government could ask the electoral victors to wait till it was restored to normal. There were actually innumerable conditions under the constitution that provided an opportunity for the losers to stay in government. The communists were on the brink of starting a new wave of public protests. But the table is turning against them as they are ignoring the same public.

The Janaandolans took place in Nepal not because somebody wanted it but because they were made inevitable under certain critical circumstances. The first one developed in 1990 to throw away a 3-decade long one-party system named Panchayat. The initial protest was just a whimper but it gathered momentum over a short time to turn into a bang. It started with a demand to lift the existing ban on political parties and to remove the obligatory condition of acquiring membership of the class organizations to participate in the indirect elections for the national legislature.

Blinded by the majority support for the Panchayat System a decade ago in the first-ever held national referendum and the obstreperous support of the so-called Panchas, King Birendra stood firm in his adherence to the system. He missed to understand the undercurrent of change in people’s mood interspersed with the foreign machination to end monarchical absolutism and to bring him down to size. Had he acted on time to concede to the demand of allowing political parties to function, the Panchayat System would have continued with the curtailment of some of the royal prerogatives. But when the movement developed in a crescendo, the 30-year old system was thrown away lock, barrel, and stock.

The Janaandolan II was the direct reaction to the direct action of King Gyanendra, who followed his paternal method of leading the country on his own. He however did not, or could not, notice the change that had taken place in Nepalese society over the last 30 to 40 years. If he could catch the public mood for development without corruption and misrule, he would be successful in riding the winds of change. But he just went back 50 years and held the reign of control in the same old pattern. That really provoked the people to come down to the roads in 2006.

People surprised both the rulers and agitators equally by turning out on a massive scale against the king and his government. Since there was no barrier, as the Panchayat System existed during the first janaandolan, between the king and the people in the second, kingship itself was done away with. It must be underlined that this time also the rulers were found totally ignorant of the public mood and impervious to their feelings.

Not that the people got wild for no reason. But that they granted enough time to the new king to feel their pulse, mend his ways and act accordingly. Since he did not budge from his hackneyed way of governance he lost his game and eventually his crown.

Both of the janaandolans of Nepal, as presumed, were planned and patronized by India. The first one witnessed the physical presence of Indian leader Chandrashekhar in Nepal to trigger the agitation. The second was the logical outcome of the 12-point agreement between the seven-party coalition and the violent Maoists signed in New Delhi under the Indian sponsorship. In both cases, India was resentful of the Nepalese kings and wanted to bring them down to size and succeeded in doing so.

The third movement is building up inside the country. The situation draws a parallel in the twilight of the Malla period, when the three small kingdoms in Nepal valley, like the political parties, were engaged in infighting. People got disenchanted with the rulers and veering round for stable and effective leadership. Prithvi Narayan Shah provided it and hence he was received with warmth by the people. Similarly, the main political parties are quarreling over the constitution that they so fondly made. After all, people want results in development and good governance. They don’t care what is written in the constitution. Like in the squabbling Malla period, the people of Nepal today are looking for a rescuer, a liberator, a redeemer like Prithvi Narayan Shah for stability and development. That is what makes the third Janandolan inevitable.