Girija has to take a whole lot of blame, that's true
enough: he held power for most of the 1990-2002 period
of bramaloot.
However, even he is not to be exclusively blamed. He,
or the NC, did not make the Constitution alone. It was
made in a hurry, mainly by NC and the Left, with the
single-minded purpose of making the institution of the
Monarchy a cypher.
The "jana andolan" of 1990 came riding piggy back on
India's shoulders (this Paramendrar doesnot mention, advisedly).
One direct result:
during "payback" time ie when drafting the multi-party
Constitution of 1990, out goes the Zone of Peace
reference in the preamble of the previous
Constitution. India, to recall, took offense at the
very notion of a Nepal as a Zone of Peace (it would
wish that Nepal were nothing more than her private
backyard) a concept that by 1990 had received the
support of 116 nations, incluidng the US.
Most of the flaws are thus systemic: in that respect,
both the Monarchy and the Maoist are "dissatisfied"
parties. The Maoists want to rip the 1990 Constitution
making Nepal a one-party state sans the Monarchy; the
Palace would like to amend the Constitution providing
it with some more powers, to better reflect the
reality on the ground as well as to act a check
against dictatorial powers by political
parties/leaders.
One material difference is that India, at least for
now, has decided not to ride the Maoist tiger any
more, now joining hands with the Establishment here.
Besides, there is strong backing from the US, and
China, against the Maoists, the implications of which
most don't realize, as yet.
Deuba, etc. don't really matter in the long run.
Complicating factors are that the NC has virtually
become a sleeping partner of the Maoists (stupidly, I
might add: if the Maoists ever come to power they will
be slaughtered). The UML does not know what to do: to
oppose the Establish of which it is now formally a
part or to play revolutionary espousing a line that
is difficult to distinguish from the Maiosts.
Hence, we are likely to see the King take the reigns
more firmly in his own hands, with perhaps Deuba
playing ball, if he wants to continue as PM.
Don't forget that the very first priority for any
individual, as for a state, is security. If the
Indians, the Americans and the Chinese, among others,
conclude that the Maoist are a common threat, then in
today's 9/11 world arraigned against terrorism, there
is no way that these powers would object in any
determined move by the King/Establishment to knock out
the Maoists.
Both India and America have in the past supported
non-democracies (panchayat Nepal, Musharraf's Pakistan
and King Jigme's Bhutan, for example)as long as they
felt it was in their national security interest.
These are things that Bhagat does not mention perhaps
because he has no clue. He apparently views Nepalese
affairs largely if not solely through Madeshi glasses
and thus cannot present an overall or balanced view.