Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba dissolved parliament saying it was essential that the emergency remain in force for another six months so the security agencies could remain mobilised against the Maoists. The emergency ended on midnight, 24 May, but the security forces are still on the move and the Defence Ministry has been reporting on their actions against the Maoists [The new emergency was announced on 27 May.] It would have been something else if the dissolution of parliament had gone together with an extension of the emergency.

Deuba has also called for elections, which means there might not be a state of emergency immediately. For an election you need to allow people to assemble, to speak their views in public and allow them to organise. Chances are, an emergency order could be issued even now, and run for three months at most. If the Nepali Congress decision to not extend the emergency would have lowered the morale of the security forces, as the prime minister claimed it would, discontinuing the emergency will do the same? Are there provisions to take action against the prime minister for being responsible for that?

Deuba must ensure the continuation of the emergency to keep the Maoists at bay, and he must also prepare for elections. For an emergency to be effective, civil rights must be suspended, but elections can only be held when people can exercise their full rights, or if the environment is conducive to doing that. We can't have both things at the same time. One wonders about the motivation behind the prime minister's decision.