parmendra, look, let's talk without being personal. First things first: you say, you are for free market, one man, one vote many times. good. however, there's no one in Nepal right now to guaranty you that. also, there's no one in Nepal who is taking up the madhesi issue which is so dear to you, except for the Maoists or the factions close to the Maoists. All Sadhvawana party is doing is spreading durbhawana. so eitehr you have to denounce the close-to-maoists speaking up for their rights and taking up arms. or you have to simply support them. then that makes you close to the Maoists, if not a Maoist yourself. 2. This is the mindset that says, I'd rather people die than change the political status quo. Parmendra, this has been the pattern, i.e., when you have a regime change in a chaotic situation, the succeeding regime is even more tyrranical and will not alllow you one man one vote many times. It will be one man, one vote, one time. Period. Look at what happened in Iran, Afghanistan and all over the world after 1990. How many of the neo-democracies are functioning properly? Not many. Why? Because the transition was made overnight without developing the INSTITUTIONS necessary to sustain the new system. So if you were talking about regime change in a more peaceful time, it would have made sense. If republican cause is that dear to you, then go back to Nepal, lobby and work to develop institutions that will somehow sustain the new system, when and if the old system collapses. If not, then instead of asking people to search for Sajha in google, go to the Carnegie Endowment for World Peace, Democracy home page and start reading the articles there. You don't have to remind anyone that "democracy is an universal value", having gone to a liberal arts school and having been a student of history and politics, I know that very well. And supporting monacrhy, which I am not at all ashamed of supporting, because there are many forms of demoracy, including many Monarchical Democracy. Englad is a democracy with Monarchy, so is Sweden, Spain, Denmark and pretty soon, Morocco will join the league. Look, you have your own raesons based on your experience to denounce Monarchy, I have mine to support it. Let's be clear on that. If you don't find that comfortable then ask yourself, what kind of democracy do you believe in? If you do not tolerate differences in opinions in a mere web boarsd, what would you do in real life? Re: Constitution of 1990. It might be flawed. It might be perfect. You can't just make a broad general statement. If its flawed, what ammendments can be made to correct the flaws? Every constitution in the world has been amended. So why not ours. Just changing the constitution wouldn't make any sense. If changing the constitution was the remedy, then why you are seeing dictatorships and authoritarian regimes from Krgyzstan to Zimbabwe? Sure their constitution is un-flawed, but why the hell do Askar Akayev and Mogabe keep on doing whatever they want. Because they can. Just copying the constitution of Switzerland is not going to make Nepal as good as Switzerland. 3. Re: Diversity: Diversity is good but diversity of opinion at this point is NOT good. Nepal never went throgh a nation building phase like Turkey or other modern nations went throgh. After the unification, we kept on fighting the Brits. Then came the Ranas, who didn't do anything to unite the people, instead they borrowed the Brits' divide and Rule policy and divided the nation. So for many, Nepal is just a concept. They could have been in India or in what is today's China. Call it a historic accident, they were confined to the physical territory of what is today's Nepal. I don't exactly remember who, but somebody came up with the idea of "crowd symbol"- when you ask people what their country means to them, a image comes to their heads/minds/heart, and that's what unites the people, that's nationalism. People think in terms of US/WE, not THEY/THEM and instead of seeing themselves confined to the country's physical territory by a historical accident, they tend to think of it as a "divine" act. We are lacking in that. Right now, nationalism and one goal, whether it be supporting the Maoists or the Monarchy, should unite the whole of Nepal. Therefore, at this point different ideas on how to handle the situation will only lead to an even bigger disaster. First unite on the problem, then unite on the solution and when the problem is solved, then talk about diversity and other things. If Gandhi had not united the people of India for one common cause, and if the people from all over India hadn't thought of it as their common cause, then India would have been independent 20 years later. If Keman Attaturk of Turkey hadn't radically united the Turkish people by changing the script and even the Islam, and if the people hadn't seen the reasons for him doing that, then today's Turkey would have been no different than Iran or Syria. First unite for a common cause. And when the true unity has been achieved, then talk about diversity. It will make more sense then. Otherwise be ready to get your house searched by the Indian troops. And when that happens, we cannot blame India for sending its troops to search our houses because, we were not united and we ourselves made Nepal a failed state. India will do what it will have to do to protect itslef from a failed neighbor, just as many nations have done in the past. Now you can disagree or not even read my lengthy post.