Democracy vs. tyranny on peace... Yes, it is rather easy to see with bare eyes that dictators seem to be able to restore peace. One can argue Iraq under Saddam was peaceful, and so is Pakistan under Musharraf, and former Yugoslavia under Tito, therefore Nepal will see peace under King G. It is also true that Nepal SEEMED much more peaceful under the Panchayat than under SO-CALLED democracy. What many do not realize is the fact that peace under dictatorships are only facades that hides the truth. Trhough the means of censorships and bitter supression, they only hide the turmoil that their societies and slowly being engulfed with, sometimes ready to tick off at the slightest opportunity. It's like boiling water being forcefully covered and being hidden in a pressure cooker. Sooner or later, the water will boil enough to blast the lid off. On the other hand, under democracies, we do not need the lid to cover the boiling water -- slowly but surely, even amongst seemingly incomprehensible chaos, democratic rule seeks to put the fire under the pot out, rather than cover the pot with a lid. Therfore, I seriously doubt dictatorships, be in Nepal or anywhere else, can guarantee genuine and lasting peace, wheras democratic regimes, albeit with major hurdles in the beginning, will ensure that the causes of violence and turmoil be uprooted from the core. Aba, Nepali paripekshya ma... It is obvious that Nepal lacks geographical strategic advantage in global trade and commmerce like the Asian Tigers. Even development within the country is difficult due to geographic difficulties. Therefore, where else can Nepal look for it's prosperity? The key to Nepal's underdeveloppment, in my opinion, is social and political impedements. Socially, we have lived our entire modern history under the discriminatory heirarchy(caste) system. Politcally, we only have been exposed to tyrannies of one form or another. Come to think of it, both social and political impedements to Nepal's prosperity are entertwined -- the caste system was coercively instituted (by the Ranas), and aggressively promoted (by the Shah dynasty under Panchayat) by tyrannies in order to consolidate their respective powers. You (ISO) say the Panchayat system itself was good, but was infested with corrupt politicians. Well, ISO, political systems do not have lives of their own to be judged good or bad without the players -- the systems are only as good, or as bad, as the people who run it. In this regard, by utterly failing to provide for even the basic education (other than the fact that "Shree Paanch Maharaj Dhiraj bhagwan Bishnu ko avatar hoibaksanchha"), the Panchayat failed miserably in preparing the Nepali people for democracy. (Mind you again, ONLY democracy can prepare people for democracy itself -- ghodchadi le 2-4 choti ladera mattra ghoda chadna sikchha.) In this regard, I personally believe that all the troubles that Nepal faced after 1990, unlike some of you who tend to suggest it was the fault of "democracy," can be attrributed to Panchayat. The Maoist turmoil, bandhs, violent political agitations, in my opinion, were the after shocks of 3 decades of utter neglect of the Panchayat era to properly educate it's people. Education here entails not only being able to read and write, but being able to demonstrate one's disgreements disappointments peacfully. The sytem of heirarchy (and the discrimination that came along with it), both under the Ranas and the Panchayat, by denying rights and prosperity to certain groups, also promoted corruption. When one has to compete to have even the basic rights and necessities, one certainly would look for alternate ways to fulfill one's needs, hence the snowball effect of corruption. Therefore, in light of the fact that I attribute much of Nepal's recent problems to tyrannies, I cannot help but vehemently oppose what seems like a return to autocracy. The only way to solve problems in democracy is by granting more freedom, more rights to the governed themselves. Like I mentioned before, democracy corrects itself. What we had in the 1990's was a kalanka in the name of democracy -- they called it constitutional monarchy, but they failed to reign the King's power by the constitution. The King remained still above the law, and even though jaatiya bhed-bhaav was suppposedly banned under the constitution, it failed to take appropriate actions against such discriminations. Religious freedom was NOT granted. Obviously, there were plenty of rooms for violence and turmoil to take roots in our country. Return the power to the people. Genuinely. And let the golden wheels of REAL democracy roll. And despite initial difficulties, if democracy does not lead Nepal to greater peace and prosperity, all my knowledge, and all that I have believed in,and all that I have stood for, therefore all that I am, would have been damned!