I have heard there are people who claim that I offered wrong advice to the king. I would like to know what that were. If it was my suggestion that the parties should be labelled anti-national, then I can justify my argument. The leaders of these parties went to New Delhi to meet Baburam Bhattarai and it was afterwards that we heard they would be joining hands.

I had said that the parties are dancing to a foreign tune. I said so because the parties were meeting the same persons they had once termed terrorists. If they can stoop so low just for state power then we shouldn't hesitate to call them anti-national. I spoke the truth, and I stick to my position.

When the present Constitution was being prepared we lobbied for certain provisions: the state should be secular and the king should be given the authority of a head of the state. I think the power that the king used by invoking Article 127 was a result of that suggestion.

The other suggestion was that the RNA should be kept under the supreme command of the king. If our suggestion was unheeded the army would have been politicised and the Maoists would have occupied the country by now. The army would have suffered the fate of the police. You must thank us for that.

I don't agree that my expressions have driven a wedge between the king and the parties. The distance was already there, ever since the parties started talking about moving towards republic. For four years the parties have been raising hackles about Article 127. They have repeatedly asked the people to join their movement but the people have never listened to them. So they started going abroad to talk to the Maoists. If they really need to they should talk to them in Nepal.'