The Maoists have said that it will be best if the king vacates the throne gracefully. Earlier it seemed they were in favour of him having some cultural and spiritual role, but in light of Maoist leader Ram Bahadur Thapa's statement that "there will be no place for any form of monarchy," this opinion has obviously changed.
India's Bharatiya Janata Party and especially its leader Lal Krishna Advani have been adamant that monarchy is crucial for the sovereignty of Nepal. But after the 10 April elections, even they have welcomed the advent of republican democracy. When the king was most in need of their support, the BJP abandoned him, claiming that it could not interfere in foreign matters.
Not many options remain for the king: either accept the offer of stepping down gracefully, reach a consensus through political negotiation or abdicate. "But in my opinion, under no circumstances will he leave the country," said an ex-minister who recently met with the king. "The king has accepted that the 1 February takeover was a mistake but all the political parties and foreign nations who encouraged him to take that action are trying to escape responsibility by blaming him. That's why a republic has been declared so quickly and without following the proper procedures," said the minister.
What will happen after removing the king is something no one has considered. No one has researched the political repercussions of such an action. It should not be forgotten that Sikkim and Afghanistan lost their kings, and subsequently their sovereignty and independence. Many people are aware of this but lack the courage to say it openly.