Many blame technical issues for the failure of the peace talks, but we believe that the entire range of national and international tension and class and political power-relations must be taken into consideration. Trifling matters do not decide the fate of talks that involve a people's rebellion which seeks to change a two-century-old monarchy.

The political agenda presented by the government and the national and international powers has a vested interest in retaining the king's power. The old regime under the leadership of the king dilly-dallied and then came up with a hastily cobbled-together plan that spoke about progress and change in the government but just wanted all of the old power structures to remain intact.

Our agendas are poles apart and do not have an immediate meeting point. This was the main political difference that led to the failure of talks. The old regime is creating the illusion that there isn't much difference between the two political agendas. They even assure the people that a few additional rounds of talks will overcome differences.

Due to the struggle for people's rule, the majority understand that the monarchy and the army are the main barriers to institutional development. This is why we stressed the direct participation of the king or his representative in the talks. Instead, the king instead chose to stay behind the scenes to call the shots. When we were at a critical juncture he left the country on the excuse of a health check-up. His latest move proves that he is either playing into the hands of foreign powers or is involved in a conspiracy to misuse the talks as a means for selfish strategic gains. Whatever the circumstances, the king's role in the talks has been negative.

Even parliamentary forces did little other than offer lip service. It was ironic to see them wishing for the failure of the talks just so that they could once again have state-power. If only they had risen to the level of a constituent assembly, the king would have been under tremendous pressure and the incomplete agenda of 1950 would have been fulfilled today.

The monarchy is standing at its most critical juncture today. There is a strong possibility that the monarchy, which has already lost the peoples' support, will militarise with the help of a foreign power and launch a final fight for its existence. It will either declare military rule or use parliamentary forces as eyewash. If the king, ordered by foreign masters, appoints Sher Bahadur Deuba, Madhab Kumar Nepal or any parliamentary leader as the prime minister, their status will be no different from that of Lokendra Bahadur Chand and Surya Bahadur Thapa. The 1991 Constitution is dead and it will be impossible to revive it.

During delivery, the labour pain is severe, but soon a healthy and original people's rule is going to be born. It can't and won't be stopped.