Kathmandu high society too considers it beneath its dignity to discuss politics. For the glitterati, it's infra-dig to pay too much attention to these uncouth politicos. The military brass, officialdom and big business (MOB) of the entrenched elite in failing states look upon the representatives of hoi polloi with barely concealed contempt. The very thought of state power in the hands of these unwashed masses from the back of the beyond fills them with horror.

Words like "parochialism", "corruption", "incompetence" are hurled at those politicians that have a popular base. Dummies are the most that the MOB oligarchy can tolerate in the name of politics. Minister-in-chief Lokendra Bahadur Chand spends better part of his day offering prayers. He has no hesitation in attending anniversary celebrations in obscure Hanuman temples and a birthday bash of Satya Sai Baba. When he has any time left after attending to his deities, he devotes it to releasing music cassettes of upwardly mobile socialites.

Given their open disdain for politics, the Nepali elite's sudden interest in the desirability of a constituent assembly is rather baffling. When social butterflies, who once prided in keeping their distance from ordinary scribes, collar you at glittering parties and want you to clarify your position on the question of sovereignty, you have to realise that things aren't same anymore after October the Fourth.

The Maoists' call for a constituent assembly is now being drowned out by the voice of the political right calling for the same thing. Lately, even the ideologically emasculated Chand cabinet has begun to express an interest in the people's sovereignty. The elite of Kathmandu valley seems to be under the impression that once the proposal of a constituent assembly is accepted, all our longstanding political issues shall be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

Like four visually challenged gentlemen examining an elephant, every political force is interpreting the proposal of a constituent assembly in its own way. For the Maoists, it is the first step towards their utopia of dictatorship of the proletariat. Having failed to keep the king within the accepted norms of constitutional monarchy, intellectuals close to the Nepali Congress want a constituent assembly to do what three parliaments over last 12 years couldn't accomplish.

But why are the revisionists of the right also yearning for a constituent assembly? Do they seriously contemplate restoring unrestrained power once again in the hands of the king through legitimate constitutional means? Naivety apparently has no limits.

The call for the formation of a constituent assembly seems to be based on five assumptions:
. The king is willing to relinquish power
. Maoists are ready to accept the verdict of the electorate
. Political parties are capable of canvassing freely all over the country
. Leadership of the Maoists is in a position of disarming all its cadres
. The government has the power to enforce a truce
. Geo-strategic powers have no constitutional preferences

The best that can be said about these presumptions is that they are, well, presumptuous. The king hasn't so far shown any inclination of sharing power, let alone relinquishing it. Had the Maoists had any faith in the decision of the electorate, they would perhaps already be one of the largest political parties in the dissolved parliament.

Mainstream political parties have been almost de-legitimised by the king on the one hand, and decapitated by the Maoists on the other. They are in no position to canvass in the countryside. The less said about the government's ability to enforce rule of law, the better.

Geo-strategic forces of the region have repeatedly made it clear that they remain committed to constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy. After such public pronouncements, they are unlikely to accept either the dictatorship of the proletariat or the palace.

In addition, there are operational details that need to be deliberated upon. Do we need a constituent assembly to decide on the fate of monarchy, or to formulate the structure of a federal Nepali state? How will it be formed: direct elections, proportional representation, ideological nomination, or a mixed composition? Who will oversee its formation: Indo-Chinese joint forces, a UN Peace Force or an army of human rights activists? There is no ready international model that can be adapted, let alone directly adopted. Why then the clamour, what's the hurry?

There can be only one explanation: someone wants us not to think too much about the Maoist insurgency, someone wants us to forget what happened on 4 October, and ignore the symptoms of a failing state. The red herring is the promise of a new constitution, but the real message is forget the old constitution.

And then the all-important question: will a constituent assembly succeed in containing the unbridled ambitions of MOB oligarchy of Nepal? If yes, then let's pry open the box. If not, let's stop fiddling and re-engage ourselves with the real elephant in the room-the violent Maoist insurgency.