Nepal is our neighbour. Nepal was continuing with democracy while King Gyanendra upset the apple cart the other way round; he dispensed with the parliament and dismissed the legislature unceremoniously. The cabinet under Koirala was expelled. Political leaders were put in prison. All powers were combined in the King. It was in the 17Th century that Montesqueu had written his Spirit Of The Laws. He initiated the doctrine of he Separation of powers in the book. He redefined law as the necessary relation rising from the nature of things. In essence, it meant that law is a relation between human beings; its indirect meaning was that it was not the dictate of the Bourbon King. That is the greatness of political philosophy. It always conveys a meaning. Whether it is of Thomas More or of Rousseau, political writings have an eternal implication. In spite of the fact that Aristotle who laid the foundations of political philosophy had justified slavery as an essential institution, Aristotle is relevant even today in the sense that he justified the existence and continuation of state, as it is essential for the life and good life of the people respectively.

So gradually the doctrine and practice of popular sovereignty was gaining ground. Much blood was shed from the 17Th century onwards for this. Thomas More was beheaded, a large number of roundheads lost their lives for the establishment of the principle of the supremacy of the parliament over the king. Rights became a legally accepted fact, not the rights of the monarch, but the right of the people. Gradually rights began to include economic rights, too and it was being realized that the actual owners of the wealth were not the real owners of wealth. So politics got a touch of economics. And now it is an established fact that politics is primarily an economic fact. That is how the term political economy was derived although the good old Brahmin Kautilya had idea of it.

Yet another definition of the people was necessary, and this was done in due course of time. People, however, were deemed to consist of the third estate, just as the lowest of the four classes, the Shudras, in the case of India and allied nations. The third estate led the French Revolution. The third estate included the wealthy capitalists who constituted the mainstay of the class. The commonalty was considered to have a leadership of the capitalists. It was a revolt of the feudal days. Though possessed of great quantum of wealth, the capitalists had no power, i.e. political power. The guild owners of the middle age Europe nurtured this hidden passion for political power for a very long period. And justifiably, too. At last when they got the power, they enacted to retain that power for their economic interests. Laissez-faire is one such law. They wanted to be let alone with their money and things that could be bought with that. A new heaven of liberty had come in existence. A beggar could be free and independent to sleep in a mansion in the posh area of the city as also the rich man could sleep on the bed of mud under the Paris Bridge. One was not possible; the other was impractical.
What is intended here is to show the intricacies involved in political practices. The ideas of socialism are the result of these intricacies. The equitable distribution of wealth was considered to be Utopian, an adjective derived from the title of the great book by Thomas More. It might be easy to confront Scyllas or traverse the Charybdis, but it would be impossible to “find citizens ruled by good and wholesome laws, that is an exceeding rare and hard thing”. Thomas More was retelling what his own creation Raphael Hythloday had told him. “ But as he marked many fond and foolish laws in those new found lands, so he rehearsed divers acts and constitutions whereby these cities, nations, countries, and kingdoms may take example to amend their faults, enormities, and errors”. ( Utopia- Book I) . And again from threes intricacies were born the ideas of imperialism and of communism, two diametrically opposed political and economic outlooks and practices. Both have been experimented, the latter having no precedent, had to create its own working norms; it made and failed in many countries. But it continues to have great influence in many a country and among vaster societies.
Nepalese society has a powerful communist movement. The movement has an inherent faculty of giving birth diverse ways of changing the society from immediate revolution to a leap-like change as and when things are ripened. The Maoists normally deviate greatly from the latter path. They try to forcibly ripen the circumstances.

And now, to the point, Nepal has a great scope for democracy as all forces of democracy from the capitalist-oriented factors to the Communists and Maoists want it. They fight for democracy and establishment for a parliamentary system. It was in this circumstance that Gyanendra dissolved the Parliament. Popular uprisings do not evolve according to decided agenda. The struggle decided for a specific period gradually erupted into a great popular movement whereby the king had no other recourse but to surrender. Still he tried to play tricks on the people; he said the seven parties could discuss and form a govt. He was not still ready to reinstate the Parliament he had dissolved. Like the Eleven Years Tyranny of Charles in England, the king was fostering the idea of a rule without a parliament.
The seven parties categorically rejected the offer. But they did not know what to do as the king had already dissolved their parliament. It was here that the leader of the Indian Communists Sitaram yechury came to the picture. He formulated that the king first reinstate the cabinet he had dismissed, then summon the parliament had dissolved. Then things would have their own course in the natural way. The Maoists were talked with to put a stop to the present pattern of struggle. The Nepalese political parties accepted this proposal. The Govt. of India that had accepted the earlier proposal by the king was almost to cut a sorry figure , had Sitaram Yechury proposal was not accepted and then things took a course according to it.
And now people of Nepal have regained their political freedom. Their economic emancipation is yet to be gained.