Leaving the old parliament and creating a new one is like walking from the misty base of history towards a sunnier resting point further uphill. But there are signs that our history may never walk that path. The parties will not let us climb up the hill. Except for the handful of loyal royals from the tattered parliament, the rest will join the new parliament.

A large portion of this group includes those who would like to remain in the status quo, who can be called royalists. Before the 12-point agreement, many among them used to tease those fighting on the streets by saying, "We also have those who talk about a republic in our party." The same old faces with the same old characters will now take their seats with honour in the interim parliament, but with new names. This begs the question will they be considered eligible to stand in the constituent assembly elections? Will they raise their hands to remove the king? Perhaps one can only hope, like Comrade Prachanda, who seems to believe that it is possible to end the monarchy with the help of this same crowd.

Speaking of his party, a huge responsibility now rests on the Maoists' shoulders.

They may have walked a bloodstained road to reach this stage but they have made countless promises and the Nepali people have high hopes from them.

However, after looking at the six-point agreement there is a nagging suspicion that the Maoists have unconsciously slipped away from what they promised.

Otherwise why would they join hands with those who represent the old system?

Lately, there seems to be a fundamental shift in the Maoist policy. They have agreed to give up their weapons and practise ideological politics in place of their former politics of violence. This is good. However now it feels as if the Maoists are turning into another UML. If the Maoists are to use the same \'flexibility to the ultimate' policy, they will be just another UML.

One UML is enough for us, why do we need to burden ourselves with another?