Given that Nepal is a nation of unity in diversity between its different ethnic and religious groups, as well as our plaid exercise of democracy over the past 15 years, it is clear that we must pursue the monarchy as a symbol of unity and stability. Overall, this agreement offers sufficient reasons to move forward to achieve our dear goal of achieving a lasting peace and a functioning democracy. Nevertheless, it appears to contain two controversial elements: UN surveillance of the RNA and Maoist militia during elections and parliamentary elections. Let us remember that the RNA was initially mobilized to contain destructive and terrorist activities. It is illogical to put the Maoist militia and the RNA on an equal footing, because one is a rebellious cloth day outfit that works to oust a democratic terrorist-style regime and the other an authorized guardian of national security. With regard to the Assembly`s inquiry, which seems to be a meeting place, it is important that this is also acceptable to the king. Given the silent acceptance of the constitutional monarchy, it would be reasonable to expect that the king would also be accessible to the prospects of a constituent assembly that would draw up the new Constitution if constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy were considered fundamental and inalienable. “The aim is to consolidate the ceasefire and make progress in setting up different committees to speed up the agreements” in the run-up to the major meeting scheduled for 9 November in Tunisia, UN sources told the EFE news agency. Subsequently, a new government was formed by the Alliance of Seven. Parliament and the new government supported the ceasefire and began negotiations with the Maoists on the basis of the 12-point agreement. Both sides agreed that a new constituent assembly would be elected to draft a new constitution and decide the fate of the monarchy. The Maoists wanted this process to end with Nepal becoming a republic.

[24] The post-agreement political scenario may seem rather obscure, but it will be wrong to interpret it mechanically. Some “radical” foreigners want to believe that the Maoists are simply using the agreement as a tactic, because such compromises run counter to the spirit of the revolution. However, the truth of Mao`s declaration that the total victory of the revolution will last for hundreds of years must be recognized, and a revolutionary force must be prepared for any eventuality in the “continuous revolution and counter-revolution process”, and it cannot rely on formulas. The Nepalese revolutionaries` understanding of the “relationship between the party, the army, the state and the people” is largely based on the fundamental idea of the “right of the masses to self-dispose” (4). Throughout the history of the war, they have built themselves on coordination with different “autonomous” movements, even if they were not often aware of them. There have been cases where they have been shaken, but they have controlled themselves well. Therefore, the identification of the militaristic aspect of the war in Nepal reduces its history, experience and logic to zero, to mere formulas derived from “teachings” and “preaching”, even generalizations of past experiences. This amounts to war of men and sacrificing goals in themselves, against their function of “liberating the creativity and energy of the people and making them the new leaders with more responsibility” (5).